On 14/04/2012 17:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 13:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

bwahaha.

Yes. you would need about 10-15 times the number of turbines as the coal
power stations and the overall effect would be that you had less than no
energy to run the grid.

In short its even worse than just having wind turbines...


So probably the idea will gain great traction in the Limp Dims and
Greens minds.

[...]

Really? Your condescension notwithstanding, I suspect that Professor
James Liao of UCLA wouldn't necessarily agree with you. His background
and credentials are he-

If he does not then he is a bigger fool than you.

IF one could not OONLY use wind to generate electricity but ALSO to fix
the carbon into fossil fuels to burn and get even MORE energy

..you would have a perpetual motion machine.

Why bother with the windmills? use the coal power stations to generate
electricity to turn their own CO2 back into more coal and oil!

Run that for a century and replace all the fossil fuel in the world with
new stocks!


Simples!


Its so easy to pronounce on scientific matters when you haven't a clue
about science isn't it?

Oh dear, it is startlingly clear that you haven't read Prof. Liao's
paper and that you are determinedly refusing even to consider his ideas.
The hubris demonstrated by your response is awe-inspiring.

Prof. Liao is only holding out an idea for the potential for energy
storage, based upon his research into electro-biological mechanisms.
This is leading edge and very recent research. Nobody is suggesting
that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from power
stations can be converted into alcohol. I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some* electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions. Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess
energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof.
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly. With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and
respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.

--
Dave N