We're saved
 

Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.html

We're saved
 

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.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?

--
Rod

We're saved
 

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.html

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

I expect they are actually scrubbing CO2 out of air or flue gas or
similar in which case the mix gets a lot more complicated and messy with
sulphates and nitrates also being in the electrolyte. If you do it out
of air ISTR it isn't even remotely cost effective.

There are a few proposals to take clean(ish) waste CO2 streams from
industrial processes and turn them into methanol. Brewing for example
although you would need to be careful not to mix up the alcohols!

This is shark infested water.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

We're saved
 

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.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.html

We're saved
 

I could not even find the full article amongst the pretty pictures and the
like and comment etc crap on their site. I often feel that these online
papers need a sense of scale and a person to tidy up their layout. Its like
throwing it in the air and then where it lands is where it is, kind of
publishing.
Anyway, as I and others have said, its really rather ridiculous, have these
people never heard of entropy?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:
Well, maybe...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.html

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

I expect they are actually scrubbing CO2 out of air or flue gas or similar
in which case the mix gets a lot more complicated and messy with sulphates
and nitrates also being in the electrolyte. If you do it out of air ISTR
it isn't even remotely cost effective.

There are a few proposals to take clean(ish) waste CO2 streams from
industrial processes and turn them into methanol. Brewing for example
although you would need to be careful not to mix up the alcohols!

This is shark infested water.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

We're saved
 

On Friday, October 19, 2012 12:18:11 PM UTC+1, Man at B&Q wrote:
Well, maybe...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.html

Funny that people still fall for these scams.


NT

We're saved
 

The company's own account of where they are is here
http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/news...an-update.html

In case it does not play nicely with your reader I have extracted below
a bit to show they do acknowledge up-front the laws of thermodynamics.

"Many people have raised the issue of how much energy the AFS process
uses? As with any technology there is always a loss in any energy
conversion. For example coal-fired power stations are only 30%
efficient. However, at AFS our energy efficiency is better than that and
will continue to improve as we build larger plants, and, of course we do
not contribute to carbon-induced global warming. "


They also make, I think fairly, the importance of liquids such as
petrol for energy storage:

"The AFS technology allows us to capture surplus electrical energy,
storing it in a way that is better and more useful than batteries. We
intend to work with wind farms to capture excess energy that is not able
to be used by the grid."

Of course that doesn't mean it's viable. But compared with the vast
amounts of public money spent on fusion I'd be willing to see it given a
push.



--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

We're saved
 

On Oct 19, 12:29*pm, polygonum wrote:
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:

Well, maybe...

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

"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?

Read the rest of the article.

MBQ

We're saved
 

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).

MBQ

We're saved
 

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...

We're saved
 

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:29 pm, polygonum wrote:
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:

Well, maybe...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...
"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?

Read the rest of the article.

I did. ******** from beginning to end really.

MBQ


--
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.

We're saved
 

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?


gives a
viable storage medium for "renewables"

its not remotely viable, its financial lunacy


and runs from cheap nuclear
power

which is relatively expensive


(assuming we pull our fingers out and build new nukes).

we aren't


NT

We're saved
 

In article , wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 12:18:11 PM UTC+1, Man at B&Q wrote:
Well, maybe...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.html

Funny that people still fall for these scams.

It's well established that what they are doing is technically possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer...ioxide_reu se
They are claiming efficiency improvements and better integration. Might be
a scam but certainly not the usual "run your car on water" ones, might be
real but still not scaling to anything economically viable, might be the
start of something practical.

Some of the news coverage is a bit hyped, certainly, but that's not the same
thing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8217382.html

We're saved
 

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.

We're saved
 

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 for the Drivel Award 2012, Meow-Mix?

According to the Beeb this morning, the notion is to use juice from
renewables to run it, thus addressing the intermittency problem. What
they've demoed so far is a process, in the lab (so no surprise that all
they've produced is 5 litres). Whether it is viable to scale it so we
can stop needing to connect the wind farms to the grid is another matter.

But wind farm electricity is three times the price of fossil
electricity, so at 12p a kwh give or take (at best offshore more like
36p a unit) and 30% conversion efficiency that's 36 p (or a quid) a Kwh
or roughly £3.60-£10 a liter

And that's using cheap red diesel to run the stuff that installs and
services the turbines.

If they then want to turn that back INTO electricity well oil is about
30% efficient so we can say that the cost of a unit will be between 36p
and a quid.

Welcome to the £600 a tank car fillup.

And the pound a unit 'renewable' electricity.

And the work house.



--
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.

We're saved
 

Tim Streater wrote:
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.

still cant get 100% efficiency and its still not worth doing even then.
Not till we have an all nuclear grid and have run out of fossil fuel
completely.


--
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.

We're saved
 

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.


--
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.

We're saved
 

On Oct 19, 2:26*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:

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

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

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.

still cant get 100% efficiency

You don't say.

and its still not worth doing even then.
Not till we have an all nuclear grid and have run out of fossil fuel
completely.

The alternatives, such as this, will be cheaper/viable/politically
acceptable long before we run out of fossil fuels completely (if we
ever do).

MBQ

We're saved
 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:34:29 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.html

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

A lot, I've no doubt.
At last, a use for all those wind farms.
cue rabid rapid

We're saved
 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:26:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Yebbut it's like wagon wheels, isn't it? People were bigger back then...
:-)

We're saved
 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:15:17 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

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.

Depends what you're growing and how intesively you maintain it.
Willow is reasonably good on one acre, coppiced, to keep a modern
super-insulated house going all year.

We're saved
 

On Friday, October 19, 2012 2:12:23 PM UTC+1, 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 for the Drivel Award 2012, Meow-Mix?
According to the Beeb this morning, the notion is to use juice from
renewables to run it, thus addressing the intermittency problem. What
they've demoed so far is a process, in the lab (so no surprise that all
they've produced is 5 litres). Whether it is viable to scale it so we
can stop needing to connect the wind farms to the grid is another matter.

with respect, anyone with a basic understanding of physics and economics can see the idea is a farce


NT

We're saved
 

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.

We're saved
 

In article , 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 considered actually reading the article? Of course it's much
easier just to make hydrogen. But it's a lot easier to transport
petrol in existing tankers and use it in existing petrol engines
than it is to change to using hydrogen, and making hydrogen does
does nothing for carbon capture.

We're saved
 

Man at B&Q wrote:

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

They're claiming the conversions plant would run on the "lashings" of
spare overnight electricity from windmills that "goes to waste" at the
moment.

We're saved
 

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.

Andy

We're saved
 

On 19/10/2012 13:40, 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...

It actually says 1 acre per house, not per person. Anyway, we're
thinking of moving to Ireland at some stage!

SteveW

We're saved
 

On Oct 19, 1:16*pm, wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 12:18:11 PM UTC+1, Man at B&Q wrote:
Well, maybe...

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

Funny that people still fall for these scams.

NT

Funny some people don't understand elementary chemistry.
Ie, you.

We're saved
 

On Oct 19, 1:41*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:29 pm, polygonum wrote:
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:

Well, maybe...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer....
"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?

Read the rest of the article.

I did. ******** from beginning to end really.


******** from you.
Perfect feasible. Whether it's practical or efficient is another
matter.

They might do better processing combustion gases from power stations
etc.
I expect it would need the outputs from two or more power stations to
process the gases from one.
So fairly self defeating.

We're saved
 

On Oct 19, 2:15*pm, 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.

Depends how well insulated your house is.
I already do this but I need much less than an acre.

We're saved
 

On Oct 19, 2:25*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
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 for the Drivel Award 2012, Meow-Mix?

According to the Beeb this morning, the notion is to use juice from
renewables to run it, thus addressing the intermittency problem. What
they've demoed so far is a process, in the lab (so no surprise that all
they've produced is 5 litres). Whether it is viable to scale it so we
can stop needing to connect the wind farms to the grid is another matter.

We're saved
 

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?

We're saved
 

On Oct 19, 3:36*pm, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:15:17 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson

wrote:
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.

Depends what you're growing and how intesively you maintain it.
Willow is reasonably good on one acre, coppiced, to keep a modern
super-insulated house going all year.

Half an acre. I know.

We're saved
 

harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:29 pm, polygonum wrote:
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:
Well, maybe...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...
"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?
Read the rest of the article.
I did. ******** from beginning to end really.


******** from you.
Perfect feasible. Whether it's practical or efficient is another
matter.


Exactly.

They might do better processing combustion gases from power stations
etc.
I expect it would need the outputs from two or more power stations to
process the gases from one.
So fairly self defeating.

I.e. ********.


--
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.

We're saved
 

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.


--
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.

We're saved
 

On 20/10/2012 10:35, 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.


I don't remember us concurring that harry is eligible to be described as
"pretty"?

--
Rod

We're saved
 

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.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?

Read the article !! Stop being a dork !

We're saved
 

On 20/10/2012 13:31, Doctor Drivel wrote:

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.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?

Read the article !! Stop being a dork !

Article read. Before I posted.

I invite you to stop first.

--
Rod

We're saved
 

"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.

We're saved
 

"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
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")