Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

whats everyones view on this quote ...

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

whats everyones view on this quote ...

Unread postby BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 06:42:36

just wanting to scope out everyones 2 cents:




Like Campbell, Laherrere sees a key role for nuclear energy in the
coming transition, but he also envisions a new role for the petrol
pump: "If new nuclear plants with high temperature reactors are widely
used in the long-term future to supply electricity, they can also
provide hydrogen in their off-peak time, which could be carbonised to
supply synthetic oil. It could easily replace declining oil supply for
transport without any change in the distribution" (Laherrere, 2003).
The Big Five could thus survive the end of oil."



from here:



http://groups.google.com/groups?q=peak+ ... edu&rnum=6
User avatar
BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby clv101 » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 08:00:15

From an environmental point of view carbonising hydrogen in petrol seems crazy... if we had a surplus of hydrogen surely it could be put of better uses?
User avatar
clv101
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Bristol, UK

Unread postby 2007 » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 08:03:38

I came across this on G. R. Mortons homepage, why he thinks nuke won't replace oil:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/nuke.htm

2007
User avatar
2007
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

alpha-beta-gamma

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 10:11:14

Doesn't nuclear mean it works like the core of the Sun ???

What kind of reactors are they thinking are of any use in terms of producing some kind of power, to be used as electricity? Fusion or fission?

Aren't radioactive materials buried so far inside the planet because they have yet to undergo various changes that would render them safe on the surface, and that's why even so much as the glow-in-the-dark paint on a clock (if it has such on it) can increase the risk of getting something like cancer - because it is an energy type that breaks down the bonds that hold molecules together - like bonds holding the skin together, and the DNA -

before any liars get all whatever, I saw this proved in physics class at school - glow in the dark clocks emit way more radiation, according to a Geiger-Counter. That is why radiation can cause cancers - it breaks the bonds that hold cells and molecules in the body together.

This may also be why prolonged outer space exposure damages bones - and why, if you've seen those NASA tapes, any lifeforms out there resemble ones in our deepest oceans (cartiligious) - they also happen to incorporate phosphorus 'lights' in their bodies.

( phosphorus is also what makes the psilocybin in mushrooms active )
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

Optimal use for Electic Power

Unread postby Optimist » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 14:35:19

All electric power plants (excluding hydro plants) have the problem that they cannot ramp power production up and down with demand over the 24 hour cycle. So, during the dead of night a lot of power goes to waste. If this power can be captured and stored for later use, it would help us conserve fuel and the environment. That would be the logic behind Laherrere's idea.

Making hydrogen from electricity is not particularly effective (30 - 35% efficient), but I guess 30% is better than 0%. Other ways to store the unused electricity including pumping water from a low reservoir to a high one during off peak hours and releasing it from the high reservoir to the low one (to generate power) during peak hours. You obviously need the right terrain for this to work and a substantial upfront investment.

Laherrere's other idea, to convert the hydrogen to conventional petrochemicals actually makes a lot of sense, in principle. I am amazed that the US Energy Department is seriously discussing hydrogen as a fuel of the future. In the post 9/11 world, why would you promote a high explosive as your fuel of choice?

If this hydrogen to petrochemicals process would use CO2 as a feedstock, you could be addressing global warming at the same time. If you cannot use CO2, you are back to using a fossil fuel, and what would be the point of that? In practice, however, I doubt there are any existing processes for combining hydrogen and CO2 to yield petrochemicals.

It looks as if one can produce methanol from CO2 and hydrogen, see http://sschi.chtf.stuba.sk/konf2003%5Ca ... %5C117.pdf, although the process looks like it is still in the lab.

Perhaps a more elegant solution is the direct electric fixation of CO2, see http://www.ikm.org.my/Journal_articles/ ... alimon.doc. If these guys are to be believed, you can convert CO2 to methane @ 80% efficiency! Now there is a way to store that unused electrical power...
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby PhilBiker » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 14:55:51

I am amazed that the US Energy Department is seriously discussing hydrogen as a fuel of the future. In the post 9/11 world, why would you promote a high explosive as your fuel of choice?
Ha ha ha. As if GASOLINE is not extremely volatile and explosive. :)
PhilBiker
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby MarkR » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 15:06:15

I think that Laherrere's idea is not to generate hydrogen from nuclear electricity, but from nuclear heat.

The problem with electrolysis, is that generation of electricity is inefficient 33-35% for current nuclear steam technology, and that electrolysis is itself inefficient 80-85% for current tech. Not to mention that electrolysis is expensive (about the same price as fuel cells).

The technology mentioned is nuclear thermal hydrogen generation using a high temperature reactor (like the pebble bed reactor). Instead of passing an electric current through the water, it is superheated with 2 special catalysts. The efficiency of this process is probably 2-2.5x (60-70%) higher than generating the hydrogen from electricity.

The idea of using the hydrogen to make hydrocarbons from carbon sources is interesting, as it allows us to retain the immense investment in infrastructure we have invested in oil. How long would it take, and how much would it cost to refit every gas station? How would we distribute the hydrogen? A new fleet ot tankers, or a new network of pipelines?

My concern about it is that it will encourage the persistant use of fossil fuel carbon, and lead to continued emissions of CO2.
MarkR
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: S. Yorkshire, UK

Unread postby lotrfan55345 » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 17:41:05

We could use compressed air as an energy storage device. Comress sair during night and release it during peak hours.
lotrfan55345
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Minneapolis / Pittsburgh

CO2 neutral

Unread postby Optimist » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 20:07:38

My concern about it is that it will encourage the persistant use of fossil fuel carbon, and lead to continued emissions of CO2.


As I stated in my previous post, unless one can use CO2 as a feedstock, the conversion of hydrogen to petrochemicals would appear rather pointless. If you do use CO2, the process becomes carbon neutral: it uses and releases equal amounts of CO2.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Optimal use for Electic Power

Unread postby small_steps » Tue 19 Oct 2004, 20:44:34

Optimist wrote:All electric power plants (excluding hydro plants) have the problem that they cannot ramp power production up and down with demand over the 24 hour cycle.

Are you kidding me, what the hell do you think they do with plants, run them all out 24/7?

Ever heard of a peaking plant?

The CC NG fired units that have been showing up everywhere can vary the turbine output readily, while the steam generator portion output stays fairly static.

However, baseline plants are rather intolerant of load transients.

Would it be more effective use of energy if we used (for domestic water heating, space heating and cooling) this energy when it is in least demand - yes. Consider the possibility of using heat pumps and thermal inertia (storage) to utilize the energy at the time of peak availability, instead of peak conveniance. The losses of storage would be magnitudes less than the losses of repeated conversions of the "excess" energy during off-peak hours - and the cost would also be much less, both of initial and maintainance costs.
small_steps
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat 03 Jul 2004, 03:00:00


Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests