Biofuels: the fake climate change solution.

[Mountain Lion]

One of the avaaz recent campaigns:


Each day, 820 million people in the developing world do not have enough food to eat1. Food prices around the world are shooting up, sparking food riots from Mexico2 to Morocco3. And the World Food Program warned last week that rapidly rising costs are endangering emergency food supplies for the world's worst-off4.

How are the wealthiest countries responding? They're burning food.

Specifically, they're using more and more biofuels--alcohol made from plant products, used in place of petrol to fuel cars. Biofuels are billed as a way to slow down climate change. But in reality, because so much land is being cleared to grow them, most biofuels today are causing more global warming emissions than they prevent5, even as they push the price of corn, wheat, and other foods out of reach for millions of people6.

Not all biofuels are bad--but without tough global standards, the biofuels boom will further undermine food security and worsen global warming. Click here to use our simple tool to send a message to your head of state before this weekend's global summit on climate change in Chiba, Japan, and help build a global call for biofuels regulation:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Sometimes the trade-off is stark: filling the tank of an SUV with ethanol requires enough corn to feed a person for a year7. But not all biofuels are bad; making ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane is vastly more efficient than US-grown corn, for example, and green technology for making fuel from waste is improving rapidly.

The problem is that the EU and the US have set targets for increasing the use of biofuels without sorting the good from the bad. As a result, rainforests are being cleared in Indonesia to grow palm oil for European biodiesel refineries, and global grain reserves are running dangerously low. Meanwhile, rich-country politicians can look "green" without asking their citizens to conserve energy, and agribusiness giants are cashing in. And if nothing changes, the situation will only get worse.

What's needed are strong global standards that encourage better biofuels and shut down the trade in bad ones. Such standards are under development by a number of coalitions8, but they will only become mandatory if there's a big enough public outcry. It's time to move: this Friday through Saturday, the twenty countries with the biggest economies, responsible for more than 75% of the world's carbon emissions9, will meet in Chiba, Japan to begin the G8's climate change discussions. Before the summit, let's raise a global cry for change on biofuels:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

A call for change before this week's summit won't end the food crisis, or stop global warming. But it's a critical first step. By confronting false solutions and demanding real ones, we can show our leaders that we want to do the right thing, not the easy thing.

As Kate, an Avaaz member in Colorado, wrote about biofuels, "Turning food into oil when people are already starving? My car isn't more important than someone's hungry child."

It's time to put the life of our fellow people, and our planet, above the politics and profits that too often drive international decision-making. This will be a long fight. But it's one that we join eagerly--because the stakes are too high to do anything else.

With hope,

Ben, Ricken, Iain, Galit, Paul, Graziela, Pascal, Esra'a, Milena -- the Avaaz.org team

SOURCES:

[1] World Food Programme. "Hunger Facts." Accessed 10 March 2008. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[2] The Sunday Herald (Scotland). "2008: The year of global food crisis." 9 March 2008. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. _crisis.php

[3] The Australian: "Biofuels threaten 'billions of lives'" 28 February, 2008. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[4] AFP: "WFP chief warns EU about biofuels." 7 March 2008. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[5] New York Times: "Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat." 8 February 2008.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[6] The Times: "Rush for biofuels threatens starvation on a global scale." 7 March 2008. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. also see BBC: "In graphics: World warned on food price spiral." 10 March 2008. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[7] The Economist: "The end of cheap food." 6 December 2007. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[8] See
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[9] Government of Japan. "Percentage of global carbon dioxide emissions (FY 2003) contributed by G20 nations." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

Using food to make fuel simply isn't a good use of resources.

My personal preference would be to use wind power. You could build your wind farm out in the ocean floor far from civilization. The power is used to split the sea water to hydrogen for fuel and oxygen for industry. You simply park up a tanker and fill it with hydrogen, it doesn't matter how randomly the wind blows since you are simply filling a tanker. Once built you get free tankers of hydrogen without needing further inputs. No need to waste food. Non of the availability problems usually associated with wind power and windy days. Can be built in 'wasted' space. A single capital investment on the build cost gives you tankers of fuel forever more.

[Mountain Lion]

That does sound like an interesting idea, but there would have to be some research done to provide cost/benefit analysis and potential side-effects to biodiversity. Is there research like that available? If not you could write down a research proposal and publish it in academic circles to garner some support and potentially obtain government financing.

[thod]

Is there research like that available? If not you could write down a research proposal and publish it in academic circles to garner some support and potentially obtain government financing.

I am an INTP. We dont actualy do anything. Each idea is blown away by the wind to make space for the next.

[Mountain Lion]

Ah, but that's just an outline of the idea. Why not actually develop it first before it is replaced with another.

[rwyatt365]

That does sound like an interesting idea, but there would have to be some research done to provide cost/benefit analysis and potential side-effects to biodiversity. Is there research like that available? If not you could write down a research proposal and publish it in academic circles to garner some support and potentially obtain government financing.
Cost-benefit is one factor that has brought us to this state of affairs. The cost of developing alternative energy sources - compared to fossil fuels - has served as a impediment to the widespread adoption of those alternatives. In short, burning dinosaurs was cheaper than catching photons (or other energy sources).

Perhaps a different "model" for making choices should be developed so that a better, long-term solution can be evaluated.

[burazekun]

I beleive in self contained hydrogen sepperation. In other words, make a car and have it's paint be photovoltaic. The volts go to a stored battery system that can power the car by it's self.

The energy contained in these batteries then are used for two purposes, one, to sepperate the water into oxygen and hygrogen, and two, to power an electric motor. The hydrogen is then relayed to a hydrogen turbine power generation unit where it then adds additional power to the electric motors. If an entire car was photovoltaic that would allow it to compensate for the energy lost during the hydrogen seperation process.

If this system could be perfected that would mean a it would be a self contained unit that would only need water to be powered.

But I will be blunt and cold, I dont care about countries that cant take care of themselves. It's just that hydrogen is a much more effecient fuel and cheaper.

[thod]

Not really viable. I recall a solar powered car race in Australia, very sunny. The winner looked like a 3 wheel bicycle and was slow. Even if you charged all day you wouldn't get the energy and then there is the northern winters with gray skys and little sun.

The cost of producing all those photo cells is environmentally polluting and uneconomic for a disposable item like a car. The idea is to do away with batteries since you cannot store much energy and they use heavy metals. If you had batteries there would be no need for hydrogen. Its better to produce the fuel in a centralized efficient and clean plant. You simply refuel at hydrogen stations like gas stations.

[burazekun]

Not really viable. I recall a solar powered car race in Australia, very sunny. The winner looked like a 3 wheel bicycle and was slow. Even if you charged all day you wouldn't get the energy and then there is the northern winters with gray skys and little sun.

The cost of producing all those photo cells is environmentally polluting and uneconomic for a disposable item like a car. The idea is to do away with batteries since you cannot store much energy and they use heavy metals. If you had batteries there would be no need for hydrogen. Its better to produce the fuel in a centralized efficient and clean plant. You simply refuel at hydrogen stations like gas stations.

The solar power isn't powering the car, it's compensating for the enrgy lost during the sepperation process of hydrogen. And during down time, charges the batteries. The hydrogen is then used to add additional power to the car.

And I never said solar cells. I said paint. It is something being made at this point. There is also a cheap way of making photovoltaic cells as well in process. Using an ink on alluminum or steel sheets.

[Vortex]

Its too bad that the "food" used in biofuels is lowgrade and not suitable for processing for human consumption. Seriously, do they even do any research into the processes used?

Also, logical fallacy: Even *if* these plants are suitable for at least some consumption (different qualities of corn, for example, are required for different foods), those "millions" of people will have to buy it. Their competition to buy the food will drive up the price in the same manner as the competition to buy it for oil conversion processes. The only people with the money to buy this food would be the same people that can buy this food with some of it going to ethanol production.

In other news: starving, 3rd world citizens can't buy food in bulk from the US. Also, water is wet. Film at 9.

[Mountain Lion]

Creating solar farms could be an option.

Cost-benefit is one factor that has brought us to this state of affairs. The cost of developing alternative energy sources - compared to fossil fuels - has served as a impediment to the widespread adoption of those alternatives. In short, burning dinosaurs was cheaper than catching photons (or other energy sources).

Perhaps a different "model" for making choices should be developed so that a better, long-term solution can be evaluated.
Cost-benefit analysis is essential. The problem arises with people's interpretation of cost and benefit. Since business models are undemocratic, the benefits of the few come at the expense of many.



Its too bad that the "food" used in biofuels is lowgrade and not suitable for processing for human consumption.

Who told you that? Even if that's true in some cases, the pollution from growing and harvesting these biofuels is contradictory to the original idea. Plus, the effort and resources that go into utilizing biofuels could be devoted to other projects.


Also, logical fallacy: Even *if* these plants are suitable for at least some consumption (different qualities of corn, for example, are required for different foods), those "millions" of people will have to buy it. Their competition to buy the food will drive up the price in the same manner as the competition to buy it for oil conversion processes. The only people with the money to buy this food would be the same people that can buy this food with some of it going to ethanol production.
Yes, that's a logical fallacy, you are right. More supply equalls lower prices, not higher... ;) competition for food already exists, it's not going to rise if you start producing more food.

[thod]

The solar power isn't powering the car, it's compensating for the enrgy lost during the sepperation process of hydrogen. And during down time, charges the batteries. The hydrogen is then used to add additional power to the car.

So you move around an energy factory instead of just the fuel. Moving those batteries and conversion equipment take energy. Its not efficient. You want an engine and fuel only. Not solar panels, batteries, and hydrogen splitting gear which adds mass.

Also, logical fallacy: Even *if* these plants are suitable for at least some consumption (different qualities of corn, for example, are required for different foods), those "millions" of people will have to buy it. Their competition to buy the food will drive up the price in the same manner as the competition to buy it for oil conversion processes. The only people with the money to buy this food would be the same people that can buy this food with some of it going to ethanol production.

As was pointed out "filling the tank of an SUV with ethanol requires enough corn to feed a person for a year". Farmers have been under price pressure forever and already grow optimally. Any extra demand raise prices, there is no increased supply. Food prices have risen dramatically. You cannot produce enough grain to fuel all the vehicles since the world is finite in size. It takes oil to produce fertilizers etc. In buying up all the cheap grain to make fuel there is only expensive grain left to eat. Not a problem in the US but hurts in the poor parts of the world. Do you seriously think that if farmers could increase grain yields they wouldn't have already done so? that the farmers are so lax that the grain will come from efficiency gains? Where you have finite supply and increasing demand you get price rises.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ytterbium]

Methane could be a solution. It's poo and rotten food. It's good to use that instead of letting it go to waste. It doesn't harm other peoples either.

[Mountain Lion]

Burning methane does produce pollution from what I understand.

[Vortex]

Creating solar farms could be an option.


Cost-benefit analysis is essential. The problem arises with people's interpretation of cost and benefit. Since business models are undemocratic, the benefits of the few come at the expense of many.




Who told you that? Even if that's true in some cases, the pollution from growing and harvesting these biofuels is contradictory to the original idea. Plus, the effort and resources that go into utilizing biofuels could be devoted to other projects.



Yes, that's a logical fallacy, you are right. More supply equalls lower prices, not higher... ;) competition for food already exists, it's not going to rise if you start producing more food.

Business is undemocratic? Really? So... all that competition bit is... what? Given that "democratic" refers specifically to political governance, it really is neither "pro" nor"un" democratic. Competitive business practices, however, tend to benefit the customer - an ideal spoused by democracies.

Also, I never said biofuels are a good idea, or the answer to fuel or pollutant problems. Only that the OP is dead wrong. My information comes on the hour long documentary the history channel did on Corn on its "modern marvels" series. Quite literally, most, if not all, biofuel form corn in the US is from stock that is unfit for human consumption, and includes more of the plant than used for human consumption. If you really want I can go trolling google for some website that says the exact thing I"m saying.

And please, its not a logical falacy. If theres higher supply (corn not used in biofuels), price drops... oh wait! here comes all the millions of hungry in the world! Price went back up! No wai!

If our corn utilization is near 100% already (and it is) and if the demands for both fuel and human consumption both exceed all possible output, then your theoretical pricing will be the same in either model. If oil production is worth more than the nations that can't physically afford that corn, then its no surprise its used in oil. If you artificially cap corn-> ethanol business, then farmers, rather than go for the lower paying nations, will find either a different use for the corn, or a different, higher paying crop for their fields.


thod - Where did I say anything like that at all? US corn output is actually rising dramatically, both in acreage and bushel per acre. Also, go complain to the FDA that it takes a certain quality of grain for processing. Or maybe, go complain to science that you simply can't physically make high-fructose corn syrup out of some stock, or fine grain for baking out of others.

[Mountain Lion]

Business is undemocratic? Really? So... all that competition bit is...
Drivel. I am talking about business structure. Nothing democratic about competition. Democracy presupposes the search for common ground between different interests not satisfaction of one's interests at the price of someone else's welfare.

Given that "democratic" refers specifically to political governance, it really is neither "pro" nor"un" democratic.
Democracy refers to equal redistribution of power. Businesses operate on centralization of decision making powers and economic wealth. You were saying?

Competitive business practices, however, tend to benefit the customer - an ideal spoused by democracies.
War is a competitive business practice... it benefits those who survive, I guess. Co-operation on the other hand hurts who? The control freaks.


My information comes on the hour long documentary the history channel did on Corn on its "modern marvels" series. Quite literally, most, if not all, biofuel form corn in the US is from stock that is unfit for human consumption, and includes more of the plant than used for human consumption. If you really want I can go trolling google for some website that says the exact thing I"m saying.
Who sponsored that documentary? And if you can find that source, it would be helpful.


And please, its not a logical falacy. If theres higher supply (corn not used in biofuels), price drops... oh wait! here comes all the millions of hungry in the world! Price went back up! No wai!
Here comes? Where were they before?


If you artificially cap corn-> ethanol business, then farmers, rather than go for the lower paying nations, will find either a different use for the corn, or a different, higher paying crop for their fields.

Not unless farmers are operating in a state run non-profit enterprise.

[Vortex]

Drivel. I am talking about business structure. Nothing democratic about competition. Democracy presupposes the search for common ground between different interests not satisfaction of one's interests at the price of someone else's welfare.
--
Democracy refers to equal redistribution of power. Businesses operate on centralization of decision making powers and economic wealth. You were saying?
--
War is a competitive business practice... it benefits those who survive, I guess. Co-operation on the other hand hurts who? The control freaks.
--


Nothing democratic about competition. Right. So, when politicians run against eachother, thats also undemocratic. Even when you remove the winner take all system of the US and replace it with a parliamentarian proportional representation to vote structure, you STILL have people who don't make the election because their parts are too small. Modify it so *everyone* who runs wins and you don't have a government.

Democracies aren't equal distribution of power. They are equal distribution of voice. Even in a *PURE* democracy, you will have a "victor" and a "loser" in arguments, esp. binary ones. If you somehow force some "middle ground" in every situation you are now both hopelessly incompetent, mired in bureaucracy, and the first in history with a mind-control ray. On core issues, people wont compromise.

Yes, businesses aren't democracies. They *are*, however, openly competing with one another. This leads to higher production at lower pricing - a net benefit for everyone. If your seriously suggesting that businesses are both undemocratic and that socialistic, if not communistic control regimens are superior, I'll first laugh and then walk away from the debate. I have no interest hamming home the lessons of history.

War isn't a business. Its war. Also, the survivor (this implies one side was eliminated, very rarely happens that way) does not necessarily benefit. You can win the war and still lose.

Your also presupposing businesses don't cooperate with either the government nor each other. This is so patently false it needs no refutation.


Who sponsored that documentary? And if you can find that source, it would be helpful.


I'll try to google-foo it in a bit. It was really actually very interesting, kind of surprising given the topic.


Here comes? Where were they before?


You answer this very question in your next quote block. Redundant question.


Not unless farmers are operating in a state run non-profit enterprise.

Yay socialism yay! Oh wait.. not yay.

[1OFMANY]

In other news: starving, 3rd world citizens can't buy food in bulk from the US. Also, water is wet. Film at 9.

LOL. The best part is here:

Democracy refers to equal redistribution of power

The last time I checked, democracy meant everyone gets a say. Not like people even care anymore. Too many Americans ( I live in the US so I refer to the US) are sooo busy blaming others, blaming "corporations", and looking for a handout or excuses for why they arent richer than their neighbor, that they dont even pay attention to real politics anymore, just grand-standing hype.

[AgentofGaming]

Burning methane does produce pollution from what I understand.

Yes but methane is 25X more potent as a greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide therefore it is more beneficial to combust it even if not converting it to energy (and yes some landfills burn it without energy reclamation).
CH4 -> CO2 is 1 to 1 in terms of carbon.

As for biofuels, the problem is in Brazil they cut the rainforest to plant the crops for biofuel. Cutting the rainforest is worse for the environment than the crops can return.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ytterbium]

Burning methane does produce pollution from what I understand.Burning anything cause pollution. It's a matter of if it's produced better. Methane can be produced from compost and so on. Which means people still have food to eat. It's their left overs that's burned instead of letting them out in the air freely. It can be produced anywhere, so there're no need for long transports and difficult handling.

[thod]

Burning anything cause pollution. It's a matter of if it's produced better. Methane can be produced from compost and so on. Which means people still have food to eat. It's their left overs that's burned instead of letting them out in the air freely. It can be produced anywhere, so there're no need for long transports and difficult handling.

When you burn CO to CO2 you generate greenhouse gas. The beauty of hydrogen is that there is no pollution. It takes energy to split the H2O into hydrogen. Then when its burned you get, yep, H2O. From water to water, no pollution there.

When I look in the toilet bowl I simply dont produce enough waste to make the methane needed to power my car for that long. Methane from composting could power a small power plant but its not going to replace oil.

[Ytterbium]

When you burn CO to CO2 you generate greenhouse gas. The beauty of hydrogen is that there is no pollution. It takes energy to split the H2O into hydrogen. Then when its burned you get, yep, H2O. From water to water, no pollution there.

When I look in the toilet bowl I simply dont produce enough waste to make the methane needed to power my car for that long. Methane from composting could power a small power plant but its not going to replace oil.To produce hydrogen you need alot of power and that have to come from something too. I know Norway and Iceland have nearly 100% non-polluting electricity production (hydro power, geothermal). There it can be feasible for hydrogen. I know Norway are into electric cars. They have two car producers, Th!nk and Kewet.

That's a reason to make cars better. Then there're other alternative fuels too.
Oil can be replaced depending on where on the earth you live. There're different causes why we consume so much. Heating for instance, get better isolation, recirculate heat in the ventilation system. Many small becks makes a river at the end as we say in Sweden. Get the big picture, system thinking, you're an NT.

[eternaltriangle]

What is the problem with nuclear power? It has the lowest cost per kilowatt hour, and does not emit pollutants into the air. Nuclear waste storage is one of the most overstated problems ever. Moreover, there is plenty of uranium in Canada and Australia - relatively safe from the instability of a certain other fuel source. France has been able to meet Kyoto deadlines and then some by adopting a largely nuclear approach to energy, and I mean, since when has France been wrong about things... okay bad example.

[thod]

It does release radioactives into the water though that they use for such things as cooling. Increased radiation levels are normal near nuclear plants. Waste storage doesnt seem overstated to me. U-235 has a half life of 704 million years. Given tectonic plate movement etc its difficult to see how a structure to contain it could be built.

Then there is this problem

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

Based on the research I've done, you are all pretty much wrong.

Alternative chemical fuels are not the answer. We can't convert sunlight into chemical fuel fast enough to replace the sunlight that was stored as oil. I'm sure they will be used far into the future, but the process won't scale up to anything significant.

Hydrogen is not the answer. If there was a naturally occuring source of pure hydrogen then it might be practical, but there's not. The possibility exists that someone will engineer an alge or something that produces pure hydrogen. However, hydrogen is the smallest element, you can't build a bottle to hold it and you can't build a pipeline to transport it. It leaks out of whatever container it is in at an average rate of 1% per day. Additionally, it can't be stored safely. Hydrogen burns at anywhere from 5% to 95% mixed with air, because it is stored at high pressure, the gas speeding out of a leak can potentially ignite itself from just friction. When it burns either the tank explodes or it produces a huge jet of flame, like a giant cutting torch. If it just leaks and doesn't burn it is completely undetectable, colorless, odorless, and if it accumulates anywhere it can be set off by any open flame.

Aside from all that, it is inefficient. Hydrogen is not an energy source it is an energy carrier. You don't burn hydrogen, you convert it. There is no way to "add energy" to it. That means that every step of the process is limited in its effeciency by the chemical reactions taking place. Based on work by people who design and build fuel cells, a hydrogen economy will not work. Because of the loss of energy involved in making hydrogen from electricity, storing/transporting the hydrogen, and converting it back to electricity for power you would have to have 4 times as many power generating stations than if you just used the electricity directly. Additionally, the hydrogen has to be close to pure for the reactions to work, that means there is a limit to how efficient the process of creating it can ever become.

Photovoltaics are part of the answer. At the moment no one has figured out how to build them so that they convert more than a small fraction of the light hitting them into electricity. Therefore, ground-mounted or vehicle-mounted solar cells will be inherently limited in how much power they can supply. By way of example, if you covered the top of a small pickup with cells (like a roof) they wouldn't be able to recharge the batteries for a 30 mile drive (in 6 hours) even on a sunny day. So, forget about driving the thing to work.

However, space based photovoltaics are a potential solution. It doesn't matter how inefficient they are, space is big enough. The power can be beamed down with microwaves (or whatever) to receiving stations that distribute it through the grid. All our energy comes from the sun anyway, the most efficient process is to cut out the middle man.

Additionally, things like wind/hydro and nuclear are potential stop-gaps until the solar satellites are up and running and in areas where it is more efficient than running a cable to the main grid. Run everything off of electricity and you have a zero-emissions earth.

[Sylvanus]

It does release radioactives into the water though that they use for such things as cooling. Increased radiation levels are normal near nuclear plants. Waste storage doesnt seem overstated to me. U-235 has a half life of 704 million years. Given tectonic plate movement etc its difficult to see how a structure to contain it could be built.

Then there is this problem

(Big freaking picture)

The amount of radioactive nuclides released during normal operation are negligible.
The simple solution to storage is placing it somewhere far away from fault lines, water tables and people.
Chernobyl is an aberration, the result of poor engineering practices combines with poor operational practices and poor working knowledge of a nuclear reactor. The world has learned the lesson, nuclear power plants aren't built/operated like that anymore.

[thod]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Any solution that uses lead, cadmium etc batteries is not acceptable. They store little power and don't last long. There are 2 problems, power generation and power storage. Wind turbines generate power randomly depending on the wind. But they do so 24 hours a day. Feeding that to the grid is fine when its in demand, the question is what to do with all the power when nobody wants it. This is where you use the power to produce something else. It doesn't matter if its efficient since it would be wasted anyhow.

The story with Iceland is interesting because they have vasts amounts of electricity. The problem is not generation but storage, so they use it to make other products. Electricity is great but there is no way to store it except in chemical bonds, which is liquid fuel production of whatever type.

[lordrrr]

I think that we need to build better irrigation systems in Africa instead of just handing them money and food. We'll just have to keep forking money to them and they will eat the food and become hungry again. It doesn't work effectively. They need ways to get food.

[blueback]

Electricity is great but there is no way to store it except in chemical bonds, which is liquid fuel production of whatever type.

Wow. That's like walking into a sports bar and saying that those guys playing soccer should just use their hands, it would make things so much easier.

Do some research.

[Sylvanus]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Any solution that uses lead, cadmium etc batteries is not acceptable. They store little power and don't last long. There are 2 problems, power generation and power storage. Wind turbines generate power randomly depending on the wind. But they do so 24 hours a day. Feeding that to the grid is fine when its in demand, the question is what to do with all the power when nobody wants it. This is where you use the power to produce something else. It doesn't matter if its efficient since it would be wasted anyhow.


If the turbine is plugged into the power grid it can supply power 24 hours a day without having to be stored. If there is a demand for 100GW during the day and turbines are supplying 20GW, then 80GW will be supplied by other means (nuclear,coal etc...), then at night if the demand is only 40GW, and the turbines are supplying 20GW, then the other generators will only need to supply 20GW.

[thegnat]

Based on the research I've done, you are all pretty much wrong.

Alternative chemical fuels are not the answer. We can't convert sunlight into chemical fuel fast enough to replace the sunlight that was stored as oil. I'm sure they will be used far into the future, but the process won't scale up to anything significant.

You're mixing up stuff already. Sunlight was never stored as oil. The purpose of solar energy being used as a fuel is for it to generate electricity. It's not intended to be converted into a chemical fuel. However, chemicals may help convert sunlight into energy. I can pretty much guarantee you it's a fast conversion rate too.


Hydrogen is not the answer. If there was a naturally occuring source of pure hydrogen then it might be practical, but there's not. The possibility exists that someone will engineer an alge or something that produces pure hydrogen. However, hydrogen is the smallest element, you can't build a bottle to hold it and you can't build a pipeline to transport it. It leaks out of whatever container it is in at an average rate of 1% per day. Additionally, it can't be stored safely. Hydrogen burns at anywhere from 5% to 95% mixed with air, because it is stored at high pressure, the gas speeding out of a leak can potentially ignite itself from just friction. When it burns either the tank explodes or it produces a huge jet of flame, like a giant cutting torch. If it just leaks and doesn't burn it is completely undetectable, colorless, odorless, and if it accumulates anywhere it can be set off by any open flame.

Aside from all that, it is inefficient. Hydrogen is not an energy source it is an energy carrier. You don't burn hydrogen, you convert it. There is no way to "add energy" to it. That means that every step of the process is limited in its effeciency by the chemical reactions taking place. Based on work by people who design and build fuel cells, a hydrogen economy will not work. Because of the loss of energy involved in making hydrogen from electricity, storing/transporting the hydrogen, and converting it back to electricity for power you would have to have 4 times as many power generating stations than if you just used the electricity directly. Additionally, the hydrogen has to be close to pure for the reactions to work, that means there is a limit to how efficient the process of creating it can ever become.

You have not done your research. At this present moment in time it is not practical, however, I want to make a few points. 1) Water splitting is being looked into as a source of hydrogen, like plants split water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Man-made photosynthesis is the idea. 2) You *can* build a bottle to store it and pipe-lines to transport it. *However* they need to be of different materials than we have now so we'd have to gut the entire system of gasoline-transporting tubes to replace them with hydrogen-transporting ones. 3) The storage can be safe as long as it's dealt with properly. Really, you can be safe with practically anything as long as you handle it right. 4) It can be set off (in oxygen with the right proportion of hydrogen to oxygen), but it's not going to cause a raging fire. Just a BOOM! And it'll be over. 5) If it's so inefficient then why do space shuttles use it? (yes, i realize we don't want jet packs on our cars, but still...)

Photovoltaics are part of the answer. At the moment no one has figured out how to build them so that they convert more than a small fraction of the light hitting them into electricity. Therefore, ground-mounted or vehicle-mounted solar cells will be inherently limited in how much power they can supply. By way of example, if you covered the top of a small pickup with cells (like a roof) they wouldn't be able to recharge the batteries for a 30 mile drive (in 6 hours) even on a sunny day. So, forget about driving the thing to work.

However, space based photovoltaics are a potential solution. It doesn't matter how inefficient they are, space is big enough. The power can be beamed down with microwaves (or whatever) to receiving stations that distribute it through the grid. All our energy comes from the sun anyway, the most efficient process is to cut out the middle man.

Additionally, things like wind/hydro and nuclear are potential stop-gaps until the solar satellites are up and running and in areas where it is more efficient than running a cable to the main grid. Run everything off of electricity and you have a zero-emissions earth.

There's the possibility of having solar generated electricity to plug your car into. Not sure how I feel about the space ones. That could potentially block the sun more than we want to. Though they're talking about sending orbiting reflectors to reflect the sun as a last resort to global warming defense.

wind/hydro/nuclear have all different mechanisms. They might be better for certain areas than solar.

edited to add: chemical bonds store *energy* and NOT electricity. How do you think your lights are powered? Batteries?

[blueback]

Oh. . .my. . .god. . .

I'm not even sure why I'm responding to you, except that I don't want someone to stumble across this and think "Hey, maybe thegnat knows what he's talking about."


Sunlight was never stored as oil.


When the Earth formed, there was no oil. Eventually, plants and animals appeared and inevitably died. The animals ate plants and the plants ate sunlight. Over time the little bits of dead plants and animals got compressed under the Earth and became oil.

Oil is trapped solar energy. Period.


The purpose of solar energy being used as a fuel is for it to generate electricity. It's not intended to be converted into a chemical fuel.


What do you think ethanol is? Actually, don't answer that, just listen. Ethanol is a chemical fuel produced from plant matter. We take solar energy, feed it to plants, and then we turn the plants into ethanol.


You have not done your research. At this present moment in time it is not practical, however,


Tell that to my harddrive. I've got dozens of articles direct from researchers describing the potential for hydrogen. Did you know that the first internal combustion engine ran on hydrogen? There's a reason none of the rest of them did.


I want to make a few points. 1) Water splitting is being looked into as a source of hydrogen, like plants split water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Man-made photosynthesis is the idea.


Photosynthesis is when plants use sunlight to make sugar. . .not hydrogen. Good try though, you did use a big word.

The word you're looking for is electrolysis. . .and plants don't do that.

"Water splitting", or "electrolysis" for those in the know, has been around for a very long time. There is very little left to discover about it. The process is very simple and very impossible to improve upon. Yes, I recognize that someone might discover a way to make it work better that no one had ever thought of before. Someone might figure out how to harness fusion too, but I'm not pinning my hopes on it.


2) You *can* build a bottle to store it and pipe-lines to transport it. *However* they need to be of different materials than we have now so we'd have to gut the entire system of gasoline-transporting tubes to replace them with hydrogen-transporting ones.


Did you skip the scary part of my post where I used numbers? Hydrogen leaks out of its containers at an average rate of 1% per day. That means that no, you can't build a bottle to hold it. At least, you can't build a cost effective bottle. Hydrogen is currently used in lots of specialized situations, it is great for some things. It is pretty much the definition of a bad idea for most things.

You are not going to figure out a way to pipe hydrogen the same way we pipe gasoline. If you think you are, then see my thoughts on fusion above.

Each hydrogen molecule has a lot of potential energy, but they are so hard to compress that hydrogen has a low energy volume. You can increase its energy volume by liquifying it, but then you need a cryogenic freezing system to keep it cold. You're not going to refrigerate thousands of miles of pipeline. If you try to push the unliquified hydrogen through the pipeline fast enough to make up for its low energy volume you will rupture teh pipes or ignite the hydrogen.


3) The storage can be safe as long as it's dealt with properly. Really, you can be safe with practically anything as long as you handle it right.


No, it cannot.

Try to imagine the world we live in now, only with tanks of hydrogen in every car and next to every home. Keep in mind, this is a world populated by people who stab themselves in the eye with screwdrivers and can't get their VCR to stop blinking.

Professionals can make some very dangerous situations as safe as possible, amatures can make some very safe situations as dangerous as possible.


4) It can be set off (in oxygen with the right proportion of hydrogen to oxygen), but it's not going to cause a raging fire. Just a BOOM! And it'll be over.


Just a BOOM. . .huh. Nothing like the smell of smoke and burning flesh in the morning, right? Hydrogen burns violently. That is why it explodes. If it just creates a flame, instead of an explosion, it looks a lot like a blow-torch or a flame thrower. It is much hotter than the fire produced by gasoline. . .so yes, it will cause a raging fire.


5) If it's so inefficient then why do space shuttles use it? (yes, i realize we don't want jet packs on our cars, but still...)


Have you never noticed how big those booster rockets are? That is because it is "so inefficient." Additionally, they aren't trying to sip a little from a long-term storage tank to feed an ICE or a fuel cell, they are just opening the valve and riding the explosion. I don't think you should draw too many parallels between space launch vehicles and automobiles.


Not sure how I feel about the space ones. That could potentially block the sun more than we want to.


Again, I am amazed by the fact that you have opinions on subjects you don't have a rudimenary knowledge of.

Most of the plans for solar collecting satellites would put them. . .oh never mind. Just do some research before you post.


wind/hydro/nuclear have all different mechanisms. They might be better for certain areas than solar.


Yeah. I said that. You actually quoted me as saying that.


edited to add: chemical bonds store *energy* and NOT electricity. How do you think your lights are powered? Batteries?


You should understand that chemistry and electricity are practically the same thing. Seriously. It's science. There are books about it. There are TV shows about it. There are classes on it.


Again, I'm sure this came off as a bit offensive, and I'm not sure that I didn't intend it that way. You really need to do some basic, rudimentary research on these topics because you are very misinformed.

[ShaiGar]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

I believe an "LOL" is appropriate.

[Ytterbium]

Hydrogen can be appropriate if there's a surplus of electricity. This can be used as electricity supply (or fuel for vehicles) when there's deficit from other sources.
Then it's possible to remove unessary electricity consumers. When I was in Gran Canaria a place full of wind power. In the hotel they used electric water heater instead of using a heat exchanger on the roof. It's not likely it will ever get cold there.

[blueback]

Flywheels are better at storing excess electrical power. In fact, they are so much better that they've already been used for quite some time.

There are other, more specific, ways to store electricity when demand is low. For example, there are air conditioners that use grid power in the middle of the night to freeze a giant tank of water. Then, during the day, they use the ice to air condition the building.

[Ytterbium]

Flywheels are better at storing excess electrical power. In fact, they are so much better that they've already been used for quite some time.

There are other, more specific, ways to store electricity when demand is low. For example, there are air conditioners that use grid power in the middle of the night to freeze a giant tank of water. Then, during the day, they use the ice to air condition the building.Yes that's what I mean. There're many ways and none of them really fits everywhere. So it would be wrong to search for one solution. As there're many different each good or bad in certain areas.

[thod]

Flywheels fly apart if you spin them too fast there is a maximum strength on chemical bonds. They are awkward on vehicles since they ae gyroscope and stop you turning corners. I know of at least one power station that uses excess power to pump water upto a lake in the hills. Then its a simple hydro plant to get the energy back.

[blueback]

True, that's why they are fixed installations. Flywheels are more efficient than hydro, but their storage capacity is more limited.

[thegnat]

Oh. . .my. . .god. . .
The crazy thing is…I had the same reaction to your post. I was laughing all the way through!

I'm not even sure why I'm responding to you, except that I don't want someone to stumble across this and think "Hey, maybe thegnat knows what he's talking about."
I probably spend 7 hours or more each day studying chemistry either in the lab, in the class, or at home.
When the Earth formed, there was no oil. Eventually, plants and animals appeared and inevitably died. The animals ate plants and the plants ate sunlight. Over time the little bits of dead plants and animals got compressed under the Earth and became oil.

Seriously? There was no oil when the earth was formed? Like macromolecules weren’t made before micromolecules. I’m shocked.

Very small molecules were around at the very beginning. Then they gradually formed bigger molecules through chemical reactions (all kinds! Including decompositions, substitutions, etc) over time.

Oil is trapped solar energy. Period.
Unless you consider the energy that it releases (as heat and NOT photons) when it’s combusted (octane I assume is the oil you are speaking of, but let’s just use it as an example: C8H18 + O2 -> CO2 + H2O + heat energy) as “solar energy”, then it’s not. However, at least 99% of that energy it releases is released as heat, and not light. Light comes off in a form of radiation and it shown by the material being colored. Octane is a colorless liquid. Which means it doesn’t absorb, nor emit, photons. It can also be combusted in the dark. Light is not a catalyst to combustion. All you need is oxygen. Proof of its “colorlessness” To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Here’s its MSDS. (Material Safety Data Sheet).

If you’re saying it’s trapped solar energy because plants eat sunlight and then the following chain, then that’s also wrong. Plants don’t eat sunlight. They use photosynthesis and in that process use sunlight to catalyze reactions. We will get to that later, however.

What do you think ethanol is? Actually, don't answer that, just listen. Ethanol is a chemical fuel produced from plant matter. We take solar energy, feed it to plants, and then we turn the plants into ethanol.
Ethanol is an alcohol with two carbon atoms, six hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom. It’s also known as ethyl alcohol. It can be synthesized many different ways. Scratches her head. I’m thinking about some organic chemistry reactions. Let’s see here….Oh and by the way: it’s also colorless. Alright now I remember some ways to synthesize primary alcohols like ethanol. One ways is reduction of an acyl compound. An acyl compound can be an aldehyde, ketone, carboxylic acid, or ester. A reduction agent could be one of the following: Lithium Aluminum Hydride, LiAlH4 (LAH), Sodium Borohydride, NaBH4 (NBH), H2/Cu + CuCr2O4 at 5000psi, 175C, or H2/Pt. My point is: It’s not always produced from plant matter though that of course is always an option. And the same to the reagents that are used to make it. Some are organometallics. For example, the Grignards and the organolithium reagents. These would not be produced from plant matter. For your future reference: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(I refer to these parts of the page because they produce primary alcohols the easiest)

Tell that to my harddrive. I've got dozens of articles direct from researchers describing the potential for hydrogen. Did you know that the first internal combustion engine ran on hydrogen? There's a reason none of the rest of them did.
You know – I’ve got dozens of articles direct from chemical journals, read a few books on it, done some research related to it. Yes, It’s much easier. We get that. But it’s still cleaner.

Photosynthesis is when plants use sunlight to make sugar. . .not hydrogen. Good try though, you did use a big word.
Yes, plants make sugar with sunlight. However, I need to remind you how photosynthesis works. You apparently don’t remember the water splitting part of it. Let’s take a look at the reaction. Then let’s take a look at the process, OK?
NET Chemical equation:
6CO2 + 12 H2O + photons -> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
Process: There are two parts to photosynthesis: The light-dependant (light reactions) and the light-independent (dark reactions) sets of reactions.

The word you're looking for is electrolysis. . .and plants don't do that.
Don’t worry. Plants do it. Let me get to it, OK?
Let’s focus on the relevant part of photosynthesis – The light dependant reactions. You can research the rest of it. Light excites electrons in the outer chlorophyll molecules, which they then go in an electron-transport chain. ATP is synthesized during the electron transport process. When the electrons get to the electron-accepting molecule, this molecule has a metallic center. Which then drives electrons and splits water – to form hydrogen and oxygen. Ever wondered how oxygen was formed in photosynthesis? Actually, it splits water into H+ and O2- ions. H+ May not pair up in plants. In fact, it probably doesn’t. But oxygen pairs up with other oxygen ions to form the diatomic oxygen that is released. That’s the most important part of my story. Do you see how a “man made photosynthesis” could split water but allow the H+ ions to pair up to form diatomic hydrogen? By diatomic hydrogen and oxygen I mean H2 and O2.

"Water splitting", or "electrolysis" for those in the know, has been around for a very long time. There is very little left to discover about it. The process is very simple and very impossible to improve upon. Yes, I recognize that someone might discover a way to make it work better that no one had ever thought of before. Someone might figure out how to harness fusion too, but I'm not pinning my hopes on it.
It’s been around awhile. That’s for sure. However, if we do split water say via some sort of man-made chlorophyll system, then we don’t have to emit CO2 while we’re doing it. Molecules have different electron transfer properties. For example, some can be made into “molecular wires” where electrons are pushed from molecule to successive molecule. Everything can be improved upon. Oh and by the way: You’ve just insulted a very large group of people doing research right now in this area. Outside my wall, there are about 5 papers on this exact idea with 5 different sources. You’re saying the research is futile. Why would researchers do something they believed was futile? And why would publications write about it? (Chemical and Engineering News had an article about it)

Did you skip the scary part of my post where I used numbers? Hydrogen leaks out of its containers at an average rate of 1% per day. That means that no, you can't build a bottle to hold it. At least, you can't build a cost effective bottle. Hydrogen is currently used in lots of specialized situations, it is great for some things. It is pretty much the definition of a bad idea for most things.
Numbers? Pfft. What are those things? I just haven’t been using upper-level calculus in – get this – a quantum chemistry class.
Sure, hydrogen leaks out of containers. Didn’t you read what I wrote on hydrogen causing huge (not!) fires? Didn’t you read that you can take safety precautions with anything? Also, there are some things that hydrogen doesn’t escape out of. You know that H2/Pt reagent mentioned before? Yeah, it can be contained safely in platinum. People are working on ways to make it more cost effective btw. And storage can be safe and can be done.

You are not going to figure out a way to pipe hydrogen the same way we pipe gasoline. If you think you are, then see my thoughts on fusion above.
Seriously? I didn’t realize that. In fact, I think I mentioned it! It reacts differently than octane with stuff. Obviously we’re going to need to change everything.

Each hydrogen molecule has a lot of potential energy, but they are so hard to compress that hydrogen has a low energy volume. You can increase its energy volume by liquifying it, but then you need a cryogenic freezing system to keep it cold. You're not going to refrigerate thousands of miles of pipeline. If you try to push the unliquified hydrogen through the pipeline fast enough to make up for its low energy volume you will rupture teh pipes or ignite the hydrogen.
Gas can be transported, too. We have gas, air, nitrogen, and vacuum lines hooked up to our hoods. They spray out gaseous air, nitrogen, and gas. You aren’t even considering that it’ll have to be piped through a different material than gasoline.

No, it cannot.
Yes, it can.

Try to imagine the world we live in now, only with tanks of hydrogen in every car and next to every home. Keep in mind, this is a world populated by people who stab themselves in the eye with screwdrivers and can't get their VCR to stop blinking.
Then there are those people who don’t do their research.

Professionals can make some very dangerous situations as safe as possible, amatures can make some very safe situations as dangerous as possible.
Sure, but if professionals do their job right, they can make it amateur-safe. Lots and lots of chemists have made your life a lot easier. Without you even having to think about things.

Just a BOOM. . .huh. Nothing like the smell of smoke and burning flesh in the morning, right? Hydrogen burns violently. That is why it explodes. If it just creates a flame, instead of an explosion, it looks a lot like a blow-torch or a flame thrower. It is much hotter than the fire produced by gasoline. . .so yes, it will cause a raging fire.
Actually, it’s not hotter than gasoline. There is less energy in hydrogen than gasoline. I did a comparison in physical chemistry. It’s actually considerably lower. Have you ever seen experiments where hydrogen and oxygen are mixed into a balloon, then someone lights the balloon on fire? A gasoline fire will spread, a hydrogen fire will not. Let’s get some fun into this post (evilly grins). To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. this is in fact what we did at the end of the year picnic. It was fun.

Have you never noticed how big those booster rockets are? That is because it is "so inefficient." Additionally, they aren't trying to sip a little from a long-term storage tank to feed an ICE or a fuel cell, they are just opening the valve and riding the explosion. I don't think you should draw too many parallels between space launch vehicles and automobiles.
I fly a jet around everywhere. Unfortunately it’s a bit awkward on freeways. The wings are too big.

Again, I am amazed by the fact that you have opinions on subjects you don't have a rudimenary knowledge of.
This is really really weird. I had the same thought. About you!

Most of the plans for solar collecting satellites would put them. . .oh never mind. Just do some research before you post.
I’d suggest you do the same.

Yeah. I said that. You actually quoted me as saying that.
Wow. I can’t believe it.

You should understand that chemistry and electricity are practically the same thing. Seriously. It's science. There are books about it. There are TV shows about it. There are classes on it.
Uh….no they aren’t. They’re considerably different. I’ve studied both.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (no, not defs. #2 and #3)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (defs. 1 and 2)

Again, I'm sure this came off as a bit offensive, and I'm not sure that I didn't intend it that way. You really need to do some basic, rudimentary research on these topics because you are very misinformed.
Just to let you know; I’ve been doing research in this area for a good solid year. Research as in scientific and involving lab-work research! In fact, I’m in lab right now!

[ShaiGar]

Quite subtly i've copied this link out twice.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This has a great deal of information on what the US Government is doing (through NASA and DOD) for Space Based Solar Power Stations. At the moment It's pretty obvious that geosynchronous orbiting satellites are the way they're going. However there is a part of the moon that is always, ALWAYS looking at the sun. They'd be able to put solar collecting stations on that, with relays to earth pretty simply.

[blueback]

Seriously? There was no oil when the earth was formed? Like macromolecules weren’t made before micromolecules. I’m shocked.

Very small molecules were around at the very beginning. Then they gradually formed bigger molecules through chemical reactions (all kinds! Including decompositions, substitutions, etc) over time.


So. . .are you saying that oil was present when the earth formed? Like, bits of hydrocarbons were lumped together in a cloud of iron and compressed to form the earth? I don’t have any problem with the idea of hydrocarbon chains being formed randomly in the chaos after the earth formed, just with the idea that that is where all the oil we are pumping today came from. Is that what you’re saying?


Unless you consider the energy that it releases (as heat and NOT photons) when it’s combusted (octane I assume is the oil you are speaking of, but let’s just use it as an example: C8H18 + O2 -> CO2 + H2O + heat energy) as “solar energy”, then it’s not.


I’m not a chemist, but I do know that equations should be balanced.
Did you think that I meant hydrocarbons had actually trapped photons in a little cage? Since when does “solar energy” mean photons? It just means energy from the sun. Energy can take many different forms. It left the sun in one form, it got converted through photosynthesis into another form, it got stored underground in another form. Why do I have to explain that concept?


However, at least 99% of that energy it releases is released as heat, and not light. Light comes off in a form of radiation and it shown by the material being colored. Octane is a colorless liquid. Which means it doesn’t absorb, nor emit, photons. It can also be combusted in the dark. Light is not a catalyst to combustion. All you need is oxygen. Proof of its “colorlessness” To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Here’s its MSDS. (Material Safety Data Sheet).


This has what to do with the topic? Oil is as black as black gets, but that doesn’t even matter because no one said anything about liquid fuels absorbing photons. I don’t care how much you know about chemistry you are having a really hard time with the concept of energy conversion. We use energy from hydrocarbons to produce work, the hydrocarbons are the compressed remains of organic matter, the organisms that produced that matter used sunlight to produce work. The energy changed forms, that’s all. How clear a particular chemical fuel is doesn’t have anything to do with the subject.


If you’re saying it’s trapped solar energy because plants eat sunlight and then the following chain, then that’s also wrong. Plants don’t eat sunlight. They use photosynthesis and in that process use sunlight to catalyze reactions.


Wow again. I guess I shouldn’t have used the word “eat.” Would you prefer the word “metabolize”? Did my use of that word really cause that much confusion?


Ethanol is an alcohol with two carbon atoms, six hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom. It’s also known as ethyl alcohol. It can be synthesized many different ways....My point is: It’s not always produced from plant matter though that of course is always an option.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I have yet to see any information on how to produce ethanol that doesn’t start with plant material. Therefore, either I am woefully misinformed, or the “many different ways” are either dependant on plant products at some time or are to inefficient to be worth pursuing


You know – I’ve got dozens of articles direct from chemical journals, read a few books on it, done some research related to it. Yes, It’s much easier. We get that. But it’s still cleaner.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I can’t post files, so here is a link to a website that says the same thing, the articles are just more detailed.


Do you see how a “man made photosynthesis” could split water but allow the H+ ions to pair up to form diatomic hydrogen? By diatomic hydrogen and oxygen I mean H2 and O2.


Okay, plants produce hydrogen when they break it off of oxygen.
I looked into it and it sounds speculative. Apparently people have gotten it to work in the lab, at 30% efficiency. Again, I’m not a chemist, but I doubt that they will be able to get it to work without feeding the process all the things that plants normally absorb. The more ingredients it requires the less the total efficiency. If we just plant huge fields in the sun to produce hydrogen they would be using up the resources we needed for plants to produce food.

Just because someone found a kooky way to isolate hydrogen in the lab doesn’t mean it will ever solve anyone’s problems. All the biofuels that have been produced to date have the same problem; they are just too inefficient. There isn’t a single chemical fuel that can compete with electricity in production, transportation, storage, and use efficiency. The only limit at the moment is that electricity has technological bottle necks. Those can be overcome, the chemical fuels have bottlenecks that can’t because you can’t change the physics of chemical reactions. It’s just too inefficient to convert energy multiple times, it always will be. Better to just leave it as electrons.



It’s been around awhile. That’s for sure. However, if we do split water say via some sort of man-made chlorophyll system, then we don’t have to emit CO2 while we’re doing it.


Right. That sounds like the people who say that fuel cells don’t produce any CO2. Technically, you’re right. However, when you factor in the logistical support required for fuel cells you find that the whole process is inefficient and (at the moment) dirty. I don’t care how clean your production process is, how clean and efficient are the things that it requires to function? It still sounds like you’re pinning your hopes on fusion (something equally speculative).


Everything can be improved upon. Oh and by the way: You’ve just insulted a very large group of people doing research right now in this area. Outside my wall, there are about 5 papers on this exact idea with 5 different sources. You’re saying the research is futile. Why would researchers do something they believed was futile? And why would publications write about it? (Chemical and Engineering News had an article about it)


Well, I’m going to skip the philosophical discussion of why people do futile things.
I didn’t insult anyone. I just said that I wasn’t pinning my hopes on it. In fact, I devoted a whole sentence to saying that someone might make it work (Yes, I recognize that someone might discover a way to make it work better that no one had ever thought of before.).
I’m not a chemist, but my mom has been doing medical research as long as I can remember. Based on what she’s said, researchers have to publish something or their career ends pretty quickly. That means they are forced to look into any idea that hasn’t already been worked to death because the people who establish a new area of research (and get their papers published first) get to have long and distinguished careers. People who don’t do anything new end up as high school chemistry drones


Numbers? Pfft. What are those things? I just haven’t been using upper-level calculus in – get this – a quantum chemistry class.


Yeah, yeah, I took advanced math too. That doesn’t change the fact that you ignored the point.


Sure, hydrogen leaks out of containers. Didn’t you read what I wrote on hydrogen causing huge (not!) fires? Didn’t you read that you can take safety precautions with anything? Also, there are some things that hydrogen doesn’t escape out of. You know that H2/Pt reagent mentioned before? Yeah, it can be contained safely in platinum. People are working on ways to make it more cost effective btw. And storage can be safe and can be done.


Are you actually saying that we should replace every gas tank with a platinum honeycomb? Doesn’t platinum cost like 100,000 dollars an ounce or something? Just because it works in a test tube doesn’t mean it works-works.


Seriously? I didn’t realize that. In fact, I think I mentioned it! It reacts differently than octane with stuff. Obviously we’re going to need to change everything.


Oh, you must be right. We should totally listen to the people who tell us to scrap everything that currently exists and start over from scratch. It’s not like it would take decades to implement your “solution” or anything. We can just burn wood to stay warm while you’re getting on that.


Gas can be transported, too. We have gas, air, nitrogen, and vacuum lines hooked up to our hoods. They spray out gaseous air, nitrogen, and gas. You aren’t even considering that it’ll have to be piped through a different material than gasoline.


Wow, wow, wow.
Don’t address the points that render your solution useless. Instead, go off on a tangent about how you have some bottled gasses in your lab.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No one knows how to transport hydrogen through a national pipeline yet. All they know is that it won’t work with the current pipeline system we have. The only pipes that have shown any promise are composite. That means they will be more expensive than the current pipe technology (construction, assembly, maintenance). You really have no idea what is involved in scaling up technology from the lab to the world, do you? If we are wasting energy making hydrogen how are we going to make these more expensive pipes? Oh, I’m a systems engineering management major. My whole focus of study is on who to take an idea from concept to reality. It doesn’t matter how many chemical formulas you can write out if your pencil lead keeps snapping off, that is what I ensure doesn’t happen. You can’t solve a problem by focusing on the one are that works, you have to find the areas that don’t work and figure out how to make them work.


Sure, but if professionals do their job right, they can make it amateur-safe. Lots and lots of chemists have made your life a lot easier. Without you even having to think about things.


Yeah, all chemists think that they keep the sun in the sky.
If you spend 7 hours a day in a chemistry lab you probably aren’t doing much work in human factors. If you were, you would have much less confidence in people’s ability to do things correctly.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. eFuels_S..pdf
Gasoline fumes have a range of 7% in which they can burn. Hydrogen has a range of 70% in which it can burn. (mixture with air) Hydrogen also produces a hotter flame. It also burns invisibly if it’s pure because almost all the radiation is in the infra-red range.

Again, you should really do more research. When I said that, and when I say it now, I don’t mean you should stay in your lab more. I mean you should get out of your lab.


Uh….no they aren’t. They’re considerably different. I’ve studied both.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (no, not defs. #2 and #3)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (defs. 1 and 2)


Uh hu. . .okay, now try to describe a chemical reaction without talking about what the electons are doing. . .I’ll wait.

“Molecules have different electron transfer properties. For example, some can be made into “molecular wires” where electrons are pushed from molecule to successive molecule.”

Oh. . .too bad. It’s almost like you spend all your time learning one specific facet of the world and ignore everything else.





In fact, I’m in lab right now!


Get out of it.

[thegnat]

I'm not going to do a full response to your post blueback. I'll leave that up to whomever wants to take it.

I'll just address a few points:

1) I'm not saying oil was present. I'm saying it was formed from smaller molecules already present. No, it wasn't present when the earth was formed.

2) Yes, equations should be balanced. I actually enjoy balancing equations. I was being lazy.

3) who freaking cares if hydrocarbons were made from plants that used sunlight? They produce energy and that process was so long ago that it's not exactly sunlight anymore. It's not like you see a bond breaking and go "Oh, sunlight! My eyes!"

4) Dude, I took a class on thermodynamics (energetics essentially) and kinetics.

5) I already showed you options that synthesized alcohols (and yes, ethanol is an alcohol that can be synthesized by those methods - I showed you those methods because ethanol could be produced that way. And those don't involve plant matter).

6) Photosynthesis in plants is extraordinarily inefficient. Man-made techniques are a lot more efficient with the same idea. You don't need the *all* the "food" plants get to make it work either.

7) Yes, you have electrons and they're "electronics" but you also have sterics involved in chemistry. And in inorganics, you have metallic properties to deal with and sterics involving them....and coordination chemistry....

biofuels: they're cheap. they still have the same problems as octane and probably give off less energy. I'm too lazy to compare...no I'm not. Ethanol gives off approx. 15 kJ/mol LESS energy than octane when combusted.

[Latte]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

I am unclear why titan would have these hydrocarbons. We know that they are some organics in chrondritic meteorite, they form naturally from the chemicals present and radiation. However the early earth was a ball of lava and the heat would have destroyed any large organic molecules. Oil only exists now in the slag layer we call the Earths crust. If the hydrocarbons were a residue of solar formation we would expect to see similar levels of hydrocarbon on other moons. At -180 C there isn't much scope for liquid hydrocarbons as stated in the article. I think they must be referring to liquid methane lakes which would condense out of the Titanian atmosphere rather than oil.

Gasoline fumes have a range of 7% in which they can burn. Hydrogen has a range of 70% in which it can burn. (mixture with air) Hydrogen also produces a hotter flame. It also burns invisibly if it’s pure because almost all the radiation is in the infra-red range.


Hydrogen fires are not so bad. The hydrogen rises very rapidly taking the fire away from the ground. Most of the Hindenberg passengers survived for this reason.

[Theodoric]

Pining the current food price increases on biofuels is well, silly.

Prices are going up for food because the cost of producing food is going up as well as the demand for food. The current price spike in oil has made food prices go up because oil is (currently) necessary to produce fertilizers, transportation, and food processing. Combine this with the increasing demand from developing nations such as China and India as they are becoming more wealthy (demanding better quality food and more expensive foodstuffs like meat and dairy which require even more food to produce) and the third world nations which cannot control their population surge. Its pure market economics. Price to produce goes up, price of the product goes up. Demand of a product goes up, price of the product goes up. It is especially difficult when demand starts to outstrip supply, like in Africa where food production is low due to inefficient farming methods and lack of infrastructure.

But even if we stopped using biofuels and somehow increased production of food, it still would not matter. Why? The third world populations are still unable to buy the food anyways due to their nonexistent purchasing power. Unless they find their own ways to produce their own food and not be dependent upon foreign food supplies, they will always be subject to food shortages.

[thegnat]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I read this article the other day and thought it was interesting. Any thoughts?

I think it's quite relevant.

Personally I think food prices could be less of an issue than if we're trying to save our planet and we're really doing it more harm than good.

[Calaveras]

However, space based photovoltaics are a potential solution. It doesn't matter how inefficient they are, space is big enough. The power can be beamed down with microwaves (or whatever) to receiving stations that distribute it through the grid. All our energy comes from the sun anyway, the most efficient process is to cut out the middle man.

I liked your explanation about why hydrogen is not the answer but space based photovoltaics have a myriad of problems that I can't imagine how they'd be solved anytime soon.

Using the number I found of 1368 watts/m2 of total electromagnetic radiation hitting the top of the atmosphere, and knowing that California alone nears a peak demand of 50,000 megawatts on hot summer days, that would require over 36 million square meters of photovoltaic cells if the system was 100% efficient. That's roughly a square 3.8 miles on a side. How could we put something that big into space?

The entire process of converting electricity to microwaves and back to electricity is very inefficient. Earth based solar cells are probably just as good or better now.

It's interesting to consider these imaginative concepts, but if I had to bet on how the energy problem will be solved, I'd first put my money on very much improved existing technology and second on an invention no one has thought of yet.

Never underestimate human ingenuity.

C.

[blueback]

I liked your explanation about why hydrogen is not the answer but space based photovoltaics have a myriad of problems that I can't imagine how they'd be solved anytime soon.


That's okay, the experts have already solved them.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Using the number I found of 1368 watts/m2 of total electromagnetic radiation hitting the top of the atmosphere, and knowing that California alone nears a peak demand of 50,000 megawatts on hot summer days, that would require over 36 million square meters of photovoltaic cells if the system was 100% efficient. That's roughly a square 3.8 miles on a side. How could we put something that big into space?


Apparently, the idea is to use mirrors to focus the light and make the whole process more efficient. What they would do, I think, is build a plant on the moon that would use the moon's raw materials to manufacture the parts for the array and the moon's low gravity to launch them into position. At that point, making a 10 mile across mirror isn't a big deal.

The entire process of converting electricity to microwaves and back to electricity is very inefficient. Earth based solar cells are probably just as good or better now.


Yeah, the transfer of energy is usually a problem. Apparently the research indicates that it will be competative with all other energy sources, and much more easily scaled. Additionally, by beaming the power you can provide low voltage to an area that doesn't have a receiving antenna, say to power soldier's equipment in a war. The beam can't be focused enough to make it into a weapon.