Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:34 pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:

Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...

The big question is how many kWh of electricity did they consume in
those 3 months to make a mere 5L of petrol substitute.

Indeed, but nothing beats petrol, as a fuel for long range vehicles.

The distribution infrastructure is already in place. So what if it
costs more but decouples us from our dependency on imports, gives a
viable storage medium for "renewables" and runs from cheap nuclear
power (assuming we pull our fingers out and build new nukes).

Shale oil in North America. Reserves exceed know Middle East oil reserves.
In most cases the oil shale fields are an extreme example, where the energy
to release it is almost equal to the energy obtained. But much of the North
American shale oil only needs to be warm to extract the oil. For the UK's
oil demand only 5 nuclear power stations dedicated to extract the oil from
shale. The oil can be put on tankers in the Great Lakes, half way across
North America, and transportation is then much cheaper. We will not run out
of oil quickly.

Internal combustion engined vehicles are an efficiency joke - the makers
have done little to improve/replace these old crocks. Some condensing gas
boilers are up to over 95% efficiency - burning natural gas at point of use
(in the homes) is highly efficient. Having smaller, local, cleaner, natural
gas power stations, again is far more efficient as there are less line
losses - also waste heat can be piped to local homes (Combined Heat &
Power). Most urban transport can be trams/electric urban rail. In
Scandinavia, local stations are about 90% efficient as the waste heat is
used. One station uses and underground heat store, to store heat in summer
for winter use.

On 20/10/2012 13:42, David WE Roberts wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 19/10/2012 17:37, harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:18 pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...


Probably easier to use the electricity to make hydrogen.

Have you read the article?

They do make hydrogen, but then make "petrol" from that and some CO2
from the air. Much easier to store and transport.

Now all we need is an overnight surplus from those windfarms. TBH it
sounds less silly as a store than most ideas I've seen.


With regard to reading the article.
The first part of the multi-phase system seems to be using a chemical
scrubber to produce pure carbon dioxide from the air (or other source).
Then electrolysis of condensed water to produce hydrogen.
Then the carbon dioxide and hydrogen are used to make methanol.

So the first big question is - is this the most efficient way to produce
methanol (also IIRC known as wood alchohol)?

This smacks of backwards research.
We have all these wind farms which are producing energy which we cannot
store and which we cannot distribute over long distances via the current
National Grid.
Can you come up with a way of storing this energy for long term reuse?

Hang on, it's easy to produce hydrogen but hard to store and transport it.
Can we convert the hydrogen into something better?
Yes - there's this process of combining carbon di-oxide with hydrogen to
produce methanol.
This is a base for other fuels.
Oh, and it takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere so that scores us
global warming points.
Could be some nice grants for this!

Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel suggests that spare
electricity could possibly be used in conjunction with biofuel production.
As the electricity which is thrown away is essentially 'free' this could
be an economic source for heating in the distillation and drying process
and the carbon capture could be used as a method of capturing the carbon
dioxide produced by the fermentation.
Did I just suggest that the industrialise the Essex and Suffolk coastline?
Wash my mouth out (sorry, Lowestoft and Yarmouth, you probably like the
idea).

Whatever, this does seem to be primarily aimed at long term storage of
energy which would otherwise be discarded.
This skews the economics because this is then potentially a marginal
gain in total efficiency of a wind generation system.
The question really is - can anyone think of a better way?

It certainly has to be measured against (especially when we start to
talk about using the output of nuclear power stations) other industrial
processes to convert carbon sources into fuel.

Or we just re-site our industrial plant close to wind power generators
so they use all the available wind power and load balance using more
traditional generating plant.
However, given the outrage when wind turbines are installed, telling the
country folk that we are now going to build some factories in the middle
of areas of outstanding natural beauty to fully use the power from the
wind turbines they didn't want in the first place may not go down well.

Whatever, not going to happen soon.

How about an alternative - electrify the motorways.
This gives electric cars a long distance capability with them only going
'off grid' at the start and end of a journey.
Smacks of '50s science fiction, but (assuming nuclear power) does get
away from the reliance on fossil fuel.

Alternatively just ban petrol/diesel vehicles completely and use
electrified public and commercial transport.

Cheers

Dave R
I can dream. If it ever becomes feasible, or any other alternative to
the present oil sources, then what a difference it will make to the
Middle East countries, and of course Western Governments attitude to
them. Roll on the day!

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Friday, October 19, 2012 1:24:15 PM UTC+1, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:34 pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:


Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...

The big question is how many kWh of electricity did they consume in
those 3 months to make a mere 5L of petrol substitute.

Indeed, but nothing beats petrol, as a fuel for long range vehicles.
The distribution infrastructure is already in place. So what if it
costs more but decouples us from our dependency on imports,

Lets see, dino-oil is turned into electricity at 30-40% eficiency at
existing generating plants, then that electricity is turned to
petrol at these new plants at an undisclosed and probably worse
efficiency. That will somehow free us from depending on imports?

Are you competing

This man is a dork !

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But wind farm electricity is three times the price of fossil
electricity,

It is not. It is free.

wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 12:40:32 PM UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
Oh really, I was listening to an American station yesterday. This guy
suggests that we have it all wrong. We should firstly make sure each
house of 500 sq ft has at least an acre of wood with it, and that
would make it self sustaining in wood to burn for fuel.
simple he says.. hmmmmm.

Easy for him to say - in a country with around 7 acres of land per
person that might *just* be possible. The UK has under 1 acre per
person...

60 milion acres, 60 million people.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 2:26 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:40:31 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:
Oh really, I was listening to an American station yesterday. This
guy suggests that we have it all wrong. We should firstly make
sure each house of 500 sq ft has at least an acre of wood with
it, and that would make it self sustaining in wood to burn for
fuel. simple he says.. hmmmmm.
It would work where I live - but I thought the amount of woodland
needed for a typical family was more like 4 acres, not 1.
10 acres in saxon times more or less.


You remember?
Hint harry. I read books. Research papers and terribly boring stuff
like that.
And cross reference what people say in them, between them to get an
idea of the actual truth, rather then believing what one solar panel
salesman says.

Its all frightfully hard work and far too much for your pretty little
head,. so you can go back to the Guardian now.

He reads the Daily Mail.

David WE Roberts wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 19/10/2012 17:37, harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:18 pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...


Probably easier to use the electricity to make hydrogen.

Have you read the article?

They do make hydrogen, but then make "petrol" from that and some CO2
from the air. Much easier to store and transport.

Now all we need is an overnight surplus from those windfarms. TBH it
sounds less silly as a store than most ideas I've seen.


With regard to reading the article.
The first part of the multi-phase system seems to be using a chemical
scrubber to produce pure carbon dioxide from the air (or other source).
Then electrolysis of condensed water to produce hydrogen.
Then the carbon dioxide and hydrogen are used to make methanol.


Not methanol. Probably pentane or octane or summat.

So the first big question is - is this the most efficient way to produce
methanol (also IIRC known as wood alchohol)?

This smacks of backwards research.
We have all these wind farms which are producing energy which we cannot
store and which we cannot distribute over long distances via the current
National Grid.
Can you come up with a way of storing this energy for long term reuse?

Hang on, it's easy to produce hydrogen but hard to store and transport it.
Can we convert the hydrogen into something better?
Yes - there's this process of combining carbon di-oxide with hydrogen to
produce methanol.
This is a base for other fuels.
Oh, and it takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere so that scores us
global warming points.
Could be some nice grants for this!


I think that is more or less the way it goes. Anything that prolongs te
essential fraud that is renewable energy is worth burning a few bob at
to make a story out of. Because if people actually understood that
renewable energy really doesn't work at all, they would be riots in the
streets with people demanding their money back and the head of the
polticians who 'believed' in it.

Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel suggests that spare
electricity could possibly be used in conjunction with biofuel production.
As the electricity which is thrown away is essentially 'free' this could
be an economic source for heating in the distillation and drying process
and the carbon capture could be used as a method of capturing the carbon
dioxide produced by the fermentation.
Did I just suggest that the industrialise the Essex and Suffolk coastline?
Wash my mouth out (sorry, Lowestoft and Yarmouth, you probably like the
idea).

Whatever, this does seem to be primarily aimed at long term storage of
energy which would otherwise be discarded.
This skews the economics because this is then potentially a marginal
gain in total efficiency of a wind generation system.
The question really is - can anyone think of a better way?


Well if you have to synthesise fuels with surplus elecricity, use off
peak nuclear at night. WAY cheaper than renewables.

It certainly has to be measured against (especially when we start to
talk about using the output of nuclear power stations) other industrial
processes to convert carbon sources into fuel.

Or we just re-site our industrial plant close to wind power generators
so they use all the available wind power and load balance using more
traditional generating plant.

total waste of time money and energy

However, given the outrage when wind turbines are installed, telling the
country folk that we are now going to build some factories in the middle
of areas of outstanding natural beauty to fully use the power from the
wind turbines they didn't want in the first place may not go down well.

Whatever, not going to happen soon.

How about an alternative - electrify the motorways.
This gives electric cars a long distance capability with them only going
'off grid' at the start and end of a journey.
Smacks of '50s science fiction, but (assuming nuclear power) does get
away from the reliance on fossil fuel.

Alternatively just ban petrol/diesel vehicles completely and use
electrified public and commercial transport.


You are begining to see the way civilisation will have to go IF its
going to go anywhere but down the pan.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Cheers

Dave R


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Broadback wrote:

I can dream. If it ever becomes feasible, or any other alternative to
the present oil sources, then what a difference it will make to the
Middle East countries, and of course Western Governments attitude to
them. Roll on the day!


The middle east is installing nuclear power faster than you can say
'Jihad' because they KNOW from looking at Libya what happens to an oil
nation when its oil runs out...and their's is running out...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Broadback wrote:

I can dream. If it ever becomes feasible, or any other alternative to
the present oil sources, then what a difference it will make to the
Middle East countries, and of course Western Governments attitude to
them. Roll on the day!

The Middle East can be near 100% by-passed by using North American Shale
oil. There are more reseves there than the Middle East.

But the western financial system is predicated on Debt. We are debt slaves
all our lives to them. All these countries are in hock to US banks, so
their oil will flow to ensure the debt will continue. Oil consumption
world-wide is rising as China, etc modernise and industrialise and are
insatiable for energy.

The west could turn its back on the Middle East, but the Far East will not.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Anything that prolongs
te essential fraud that is renewable energy is worth burning a few
bob at to make a story out of. Because if people actually understood
that renewable energy really doesn't work at all, they would be riots
in the streets with people demanding their money back and the head of
the polticians who 'believed' in it.

Tripe.

Tidal lagoons are viable. Britain should lead the world in tidal lagoons.
It is largely a matter of dumping rock in the sea on an unprecedented scale.
British engineers can manage that and the British Isles geography is the
best in the World for such an undertaking have high tide range shallow seas
surround it. It involves moving about 2500 million tons of rock from Wales
to the Irish Sea. To create tidal lagoons to supply 100% of Britain's need
for electricity The numbers are staggering but possible (a entire heavy
train can move perhaps 500+ tons of rock so about 4 or 5 million train
loads are needed). Domestic waste can be used being compacted between walls
of rock. This will solve the waste problem for a number of years. Bridges
can be on the walls running to the Isle of Man and Ireland. Fish farms can
be inside the lagoons.

The UK then be 100% electric in all: trains, trams, vehicles, heating, etc.

On 20/10/2012 14:29, Doctor Drivel wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Anything that prolongs
te essential fraud that is renewable energy is worth burning a few
bob at to make a story out of. Because if people actually understood
that renewable energy really doesn't work at all, they would be riots
in the streets with people demanding their money back and the head of
the polticians who 'believed' in it.

Tripe.

Tidal lagoons are viable. Britain should lead the world in tidal
lagoons. It is largely a matter of dumping rock in the sea on an
unprecedented scale. British engineers can manage that and the British
Isles geography is the best in the World for such an undertaking have
high tide range shallow seas surround it. It involves moving about 2500
million tons of rock from Wales to the Irish Sea. To create tidal
lagoons to supply 100% of Britain's need for electricity The numbers
are staggering but possible (a entire heavy train can move perhaps 500+
tons of rock so about 4 or 5 million train loads are needed). Domestic
waste can be used being compacted between walls of rock. This will solve
the waste problem for a number of years. Bridges can be on the walls
running to the Isle of Man and Ireland. Fish farms can be inside the
lagoons.

The UK then be 100% electric in all: trains, trams, vehicles, heating, etc.

Funny that, I thought heavy (by which I mean, really heavy) trains had
gone above 20,000 tonnes up to around 100,000 tonnes gross weight at the
extreme. Even in the UK we have trains over 4000 tonnes. Seems awfully
heavy if it can only carry 500 or so tons. So you can cut your
trainloads by quite a margin.

--
Rod

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Broadback wrote:

I can dream. If it ever becomes feasible, or any other alternative to
the present oil sources, then what a difference it will make to the
Middle East countries, and of course Western Governments attitude to
them. Roll on the day!


The middle east is installing nuclear power faster than you can say
'Jihad' because they KNOW from looking at Libya what happens to an oil
nation when its oil runs out...and their's is running out...

Solar too:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...lar-power.html

Unlike us, they've got space in deserts with reliable sunshine.

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 19/10/2012 17:37, harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:18 pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...

Probably easier to use the electricity to make hydrogen.

Have you read the article?
[...]
With regard to reading the article.
The first part of the multi-phase system seems to be using a chemical
scrubber to produce pure carbon dioxide from the air (or other source).
Then electrolysis of condensed water to produce hydrogen.
Then the carbon dioxide and hydrogen are used to make methanol.

Not methanol.

Yes, methanol, as an intermediate stage.
"The company, Air Fuel Synthesis, then uses the carbon dioxide and hydrogen
to produce methanol which in turn is passed through a gasoline fuel reactor,
creating petrol."

Or http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20003650
"Air Fuel Synthesis build on these methods by turning the methanol into
something more like petrol, using processes well entrenched already in
the petroleum industry."

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"David WE Roberts" wrote:

How about an alternative - electrify the motorways.
This gives electric cars a long distance capability with them only
going 'off grid' at the start and end of a journey.

You mean I get a car with a very tall pantograph? Cool!

In the road - induction.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.

It is? Wow!

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:59:17 PM UTC+1, Doctor Drivel wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"David WE Roberts" wrote:

How about an alternative - electrify the motorways.

This gives electric cars a long distance capability with them only
going 'off grid' at the start and end of a journey.

You mean I get a car with a very tall pantograph? Cool!

In the road - induction.

Gap from transmit to receive coil too large to be workable
Maintaining even spacing impractical
No matter what frequency is used, the metal car body will absorb large amounts of power, getting burning hot
Apart from that a great idea. Thank you drivel.


NT

wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:59:17 PM UTC+1, Doctor Drivel wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"David WE Roberts" wrote:

How about an alternative - electrify the motorways.

This gives electric cars a long distance capability with them only
going 'off grid' at the start and end of a journey.

You mean I get a car with a very tall pantograph? Cool!

In the road - induction.

Gap from transmit to receive coil too large to be workable
Maintaining even spacing impractical
No matter what frequency is used, the metal car body will absorb large amounts of power, getting burning hot
Apart from that a great idea. Thank you drivel.


Full size slot car racing here we come!

Or dodgems.



NT


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Oct 20, 2:19*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
Broadback wrote:
I can dream. If it ever becomes feasible, or any other alternative to
the present oil sources, then what a difference it will make to the
Middle East countries, and of course Western Governments attitude to
them. Roll on the day!

The Middle East can be near 100% by-passed by using North American Shale
oil. There are more reseves there than the Middle East.

But the western financial system is predicated on Debt. *We are debt slaves
all our lives to them. *All these countries are in hock to US banks, so
their oil will flow to ensure the debt will continue. Oil consumption
world-wide is rising as China, etc modernise and industrialise and are
insatiable for energy.

The west could turn its back on the Middle East, but the Far East will not.

On Oct 20, 10:35*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 2:26 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:40:31 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:
Oh really, I was listening to an American station yesterday. This guy
suggests that we have it all wrong. We should firstly make sure each
house of 500 sq ft has at least an acre of wood with it, and that would
make it self sustaining in wood to burn for fuel.
*simple he says.. hmmmmm.
It would work where I live - but I thought the amount of woodland needed
for a typical family was more like 4 acres, not 1.
10 acres in saxon times more or less.

You remember?

Hint harry. I read books. Research papers and terribly boring stuff like
that.
And cross reference what people say in them, between them to get an idea
of the actual truth, rather then believing what one solar panel salesman
says.

Its all frightfully hard work and far too much for your pretty little
head,. so you can go back to the Guardian now.


Reading is not the same as understanding.
Especially when you read tripe.

On Oct 20, 1:42*pm, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message

. uk...

On 19/10/2012 17:37, harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:18 pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer....

Probably easier to use the electricity to make hydrogen.

Have you read the article?

They do make hydrogen, but then make "petrol" from that and some CO2 from
the air. *Much easier to store and transport.

Now all we need is an overnight surplus from those windfarms. TBH it
sounds less silly as a store than most ideas I've seen.

With regard to reading the article.
The first part of the multi-phase system seems to be using a chemical
scrubber to produce pure carbon dioxide from the air (or other source).
Then electrolysis of condensed water to produce hydrogen.
Then the carbon dioxide and hydrogen are used to make methanol.

So the first big question is - is this the most efficient way to produce
methanol (also IIRC known as wood alchohol)?

This smacks of backwards research.
We have all these wind farms which are producing energy which we cannot
store and which we cannot distribute over long distances via the current
National Grid.
Can you come up with a way of storing this energy for long term reuse?

Hang on, it's easy to produce hydrogen but hard to store and transport it..
Can we convert the hydrogen into something better?
Yes - there's this process of combining carbon di-oxide with hydrogen to
produce methanol.
This is a base for other fuels.
Oh, and it takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere so that scores us
global warming points.
Could be some nice grants for this!

Readinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuelsuggests that spare electricity
could possibly be used in conjunction with biofuel production.
As the electricity which is thrown away is essentially 'free' this could be
an economic source for heating in the distillation and drying process and
the carbon capture could be used as a method of capturing the carbon dioxide
produced by the fermentation.
Did I just suggest that the industrialise the Essex and Suffolk coastline?
Wash my mouth out (sorry, Lowestoft and Yarmouth, you probably like the
idea).

Whatever, this does seem to be primarily aimed at long term storage of
energy which would otherwise be discarded.
This skews the economics because this is then potentially a marginal gain in
total efficiency of a wind generation system.
The question really is - can anyone think of a better way?

It certainly has to be measured against (especially when we start to talk
about using the output of nuclear power stations) other industrial processes
to convert carbon sources into fuel.

Or we just re-site our industrial plant close to wind power generators so
they use all the available wind power and load balance using more
traditional generating plant.
However, given the outrage when wind turbines are installed, telling the
country folk that we are now going to build some factories in the middle of
areas of outstanding natural beauty to fully use the power from the wind
turbines they didn't want in the first place may not go down well.

Whatever, not going to happen soon.

How about an alternative - electrify the motorways.
This gives electric cars a long distance capability with them only going
'off grid' at the start and end of a journey.
Smacks of '50s science fiction, but (assuming nuclear power) does get away
from the reliance on fossil fuel.

Alternatively just ban petrol/diesel vehicles completely and use electrified
public and commercial transport.


I don't think electrifying the motorway is going to happen soon.
The latter is more likely but just by means of the rising price of
fuel.
Already happening.
All the corner shops will have to reopen.

On Oct 20, 2:15*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Broadback wrote:
I can dream. If it ever becomes feasible, or any other alternative to
the present oil sources, then what a difference it will make to the
Middle East countries, and of course Western Governments attitude to
them. Roll on the day!

The middle east is installing nuclear power faster than you can say
'Jihad' because they KNOW from looking at Libya what happens to an oil
nation when its oil runs out...and their's is running out...

They have been installing it long before the Libya revolution.
It's being done because their oil reserves are much less than
publicised is the suspicion.
Be interesting to see what happens when they have to work/create
industry for a living

On 21/10/2012 07:26, harry wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:35 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Reading is not the same as understanding.
Especially when you read tripe.

Is that the latest version of entrails?

Oh! Understanding is not on the Thames.

--
Rod

On Oct 20, 2:19*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
Broadback wrote:
I can dream. If it ever becomes feasible, or any other alternative to
the present oil sources, then what a difference it will make to the
Middle East countries, and of course Western Governments attitude to
them. Roll on the day!

The Middle East can be near 100% by-passed by using North American Shale
oil. There are more reseves there than the Middle East.

But the western financial system is predicated on Debt. *We are debt slaves
all our lives to them. *All these countries are in hock to US banks, so
their oil will flow to ensure the debt will continue. Oil consumption
world-wide is rising as China, etc modernise and industrialise and are
insatiable for energy.

The west could turn its back on the Middle East, but the Far East will not.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.

It is? Wow!

It is, and it has been for at least the last thirty.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/10/2012 13:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum wrote:

On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:
Well, maybe...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...ngineers-produ

ce-amazing-petrol-from-air-technology.html

"Company officials say they had produced five litres of petrol in
less than three months from a small refinery in Stockton-on-Tees,
Teesside. "

So how long before we have enough to run a Honda 50 for more than a
few miles?

It's only a demo so no need to get your knickers in a twist. Ene fule
kno that there is a big difference between doing it in the lab, as in
this case, and on an industrial scale.

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

They will say anything to get investors funds.

I found it interesting that the only professional institution that was
prepared to go on record as saying this "new" technology would be a game
changer was I Mech Eng. The guys who bend metal and make pipework. I
guess they get paid irrespective of whether the new plant works.

I rather hope that the RSC point out inefficient it is to do this
process and the insanely low efficiency that it would have as described.

The figure we need to see is how many kWh of electricity to make 1L of
fuel. Until they provide this number for their present process and a
figure for the theoretical limit for the process scaled up this thing is
in essence a marketing scam - perhaps by well meaning amateurs.

"Petrol from the air" is a very clever marketing slogan that has caught
the imagination of the scientifically illiterate press and politicians.

But water comes out of the tap much more cheaply than you can take it
from the air. And if they electrolyse water to make hydrogen they will
also have a waste stream of oxygen that needs an application.

Stripping CO2 from air is a non-starter. Stripping it from powerstation
flue gasses might be a more viable strategy. I thought there were a
couple of groups close to having a handle on this. They must be hopping
mad to see this garbage gain so much unwarranted attention.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 20/10/2012 23:54, Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.

Be fair! 50 years away and has been for the past 60 years!

There is one fusion research reactor now that sort of breaks even for a
moment if you put enough power in to start it. I don't think it is
attached to any turbine though so the heat generated has to be dumped!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

harry wrote:

You were saying a couple of days back there was no debt problem.

Senile Daily Mail reading one, The western financial system is based on
DEBT. The money supply, and private bank issue money, is based on the amount
of DEBT. HMG borrowing is not the same thing senile one. Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9IH-XKQpOI

5 banks in UK create money. They create money out of thin air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B_SxGmSJP0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRuw3hQgvzM

We are slaves to landowners and banks.

harry wrote:

Reading is not the same as understanding.
Especially when you read tripe.

Harry you are 100% right! Now drop that Daily Mail.

harry wrote:

The west could turn its back on the Middle East, but the Far East
will not.

Not actually that clever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...shale_industry

Pretty disastrous in fact.

Harry it is going ahead.

Steve Firth wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.
It is? Wow!

It is, and it has been for at least the last thirty.

Hence just the same

This man is an idiot.

Martin Brown wrote:
Stripping CO2 from air is a non-starter.

Oh noes! Better not let the plants find out! :-)

#Paul

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:31:50 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
All the corner shops will have to reopen.

Nope, all supermarkets already deliver.
That is beginning to make a meaningful impact on miles travelled.
If children walk to school (where possible) that is another "win".

As for storing electricity, oh please, you use a molten sodium store which is well proven as the energy transfer from nuclear to turbines. Solar could be used to heat it even in the UK in Wales - would be more economic than clueless turbines & air into petrol technology.


We are going to see a vast amount of money wasted on "because we get a Grant" system and THAT is because we are copying all the mistakes of communist russia. Making stuff for which there is only a synthesised market due to miss-allocation of capital. If the West wants to bankrupt itself, way to go.

If we want simple sustainability, reforest Scotland & Wales and start burning the stuff in simple wood burners that just divert through an outside wall. Minimal cost of installation, good backup heating.

Of course the problem then is what do we do with the Harold Wilson Wet Central Heating brigade, his master plan for brown overall job creation... and a million other clipboard idiots.

harry wrote:

Reading is not the same as understanding.
Especially when you read tripe.

Well harry, yes, we know that, and we do make considerable allowances
for you.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:31:50 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
All the corner shops will have to reopen.

Nope, all supermarkets already deliver. That is beginning to make a
meaningful impact on miles travelled. If children walk to school
(where possible) that is another "win".

As for storing electricity, oh please, you use a molten sodium store
which is well proven as the energy transfer from nuclear to turbines.
Solar could be used to heat it even in the UK in Wales - would be
more economic than clueless turbines & air into petrol technology.


Got to hand it to you there. 30% efficiency thus TREBLING or
QUADRUPLING the massively high cost of renewables ALREADY.


We are going to see a vast amount of money wasted on "because we get
a Grant" system and THAT is because we are copying all the mistakes
of communist russia. Making stuff for which there is only a
synthesised market due to miss-allocation of capital. If the West
wants to bankrupt itself, way to go.

If we want simple sustainability, reforest Scotland & Wales and start
burning the stuff in simple wood burners that just divert through an
outside wall. Minimal cost of installation, good backup heating.


And enough to support only 30,000 Scotsmen. Sounds like a plan!

Turn the rest onto haggis

Of course the problem then is what do we do with the Harold Wilson
Wet Central Heating brigade, his master plan for brown overall job
creation... and a million other clipboard idiots.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 21/10/2012 11:07, wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

Stripping CO2 from air is a non-starter.

Oh noes! Better not let the plants find out! :-)

Even for them it is the rate limiting step in most cases.

That is why some commercial greenhouses boost interior CO2
concentrations. Stripping from flue gasses is better.

The really expensive bit is splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Plants mastered that a very long time ago - we are still unable to.
Doing it by electrolysis is possible but hardly cost effective.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 04:44:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Nope, all supermarkets already deliver.

Not all here. Only Sainsburys and Asda.

If children walk to school (where possible) that is another "win".

Best part of 3 miles along derestricted roads with no pavements apart
from the last 3/4 mile or so.

We are going to see a vast amount of money wasted on "because we get a
Grant" system ...

Already are.

Making stuff for which there is only a synthesised market due to
miss-allocation of capital. If the West wants to bankrupt itself, way
to go.

I thought we alrady had, but no one dares to admit it.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

The really expensive bit is splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Plants mastered that a very long time ago - we are still unable to.

We are working on it though, there is a crowd sourced project out there
somewhere trying to develop an "artifical leaf". There are some
prototypes that do work but not very well, yet.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 10/21/2012 9:38 AM, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 04:44:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Nope, all supermarkets already deliver.

Not all here. Only Sainsburys and Asda.

Here, the only food deliveries we can get, are from the shop at the
local Post Office. Not one of the supermarkets will deliver to us (the
nearest one is about 40 miles away).

On 21/10/2012 14:41, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

The really expensive bit is splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Plants mastered that a very long time ago - we are still unable to.

We are working on it though, there is a crowd sourced project out there
somewhere trying to develop an "artifical leaf". There are some
prototypes that do work but not very well, yet.

Main problem is none of the candidates can survive for long in sunlight
- which is a bit of a problem if the aim is photosynthesis.

Sugar cane is about as good as it gets on Earth.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown