Page 3 of 3

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Nov 2019, 07:29:28
by EnergyUnlimited
Subjectivist wrote:Pardon the interruption but you are mixing up methane combustion designed to produce heat and methane conversion to produce cyclic hydricarbons for chemical use.

Nope.
It is acetylene what is industrially produced this way and benzene is only a nuisance by-product of this process.
Aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzene) are petroleum product.
Acetylene is far too valuable to convert it into benzene this way by design.

Sure, you may get a tiny tiny TINY production of benzene, but the goal of a power plant is to burn the methane as completely as possible to spin a gas turbine.

Engineering is an art of compromise.
They want to achieve as high burning temperature as possible, just to maximize yield of conversion of heat into motion and then electricity.
The greater difference between the heater and cooler, the better the efficiency, as per Carnot cycle where

Max efficiency = [T(heater)-T(cooler)]/T(heater).

Complete combustion requires significant excess of air but such excess of air would lower combustion temperature and T(heater) from Carnot cycle by the same.
That would be detrimental to efficiency.
So they have to strike a compromise, use afterburners (which are by no means perfect because they must handle fast flows and already large volumes) etc.
Allowing methane to be wasted producing anything but heat defeats the whole purpose of a power plant and they work fairly hard at getting combustion efficiency as high as they can achieve.

It is better to waste a bit rather than produce more entropy and less electricity as I have explained above.

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Fri 29 Nov 2019, 13:49:35
by Outcast_Searcher
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:Pardon the interruption but you are mixing up methane combustion designed to produce heat and methane conversion to produce cyclic hydricarbons for chemical use.

Nope.
It is acetylene what is industrially produced this way and benzene is only a nuisance by-product of this process.
Aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzene) are petroleum product.
Acetylene is far too valuable to convert it into benzene this way by design.

Sure, you may get a tiny tiny TINY production of benzene, but the goal of a power plant is to burn the methane as completely as possible to spin a gas turbine.

Engineering is an art of compromise.
They want to achieve as high burning temperature as possible, just to maximize yield of conversion of heat into motion and then electricity.
The greater difference between the heater and cooler, the better the efficiency, as per Carnot cycle where

Max efficiency = [T(heater)-T(cooler)]/T(heater).

Complete combustion requires significant excess of air but such excess of air would lower combustion temperature and T(heater) from Carnot cycle by the same.
That would be detrimental to efficiency.
So they have to strike a compromise, use afterburners (which are by no means perfect because they must handle fast flows and already large volumes) etc.
Allowing methane to be wasted producing anything but heat defeats the whole purpose of a power plant and they work fairly hard at getting combustion efficiency as high as they can achieve.

It is better to waste a bit rather than produce more entropy and less electricity as I have explained above.

Thanks for that Energy. That seems to help explain (to my tiny brain anyway) why generally, "efficiency engineering" is such a complex thing, and why normal common energy consuming products gradually become more and more efficient over time, for decades on end. (Which of course, ends up adding up to TREMENDOUS efficiency improvement cumulatively).

It's easy to say "efficiency is our greatest resource", but it's far harder to figure OUT how to make tremendous relatively efficiency work well, economically -- in the short term. (Being a software guy and very much NOT a hardware guy, I have to get smacked in the head with such ideas for them to penetrate, at times.) :oops:

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Fri 29 Nov 2019, 15:16:10
by Newfie
One way is to simply use less.

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Sat 30 Nov 2019, 16:42:03
by EnergyUnlimited
Outcast_Searcher wrote:It's easy to say "efficiency is our greatest resource", but it's far harder to figure OUT how to make tremendous relatively efficiency work well, economically -- in the short term. (Being a software guy and very much NOT a hardware guy, I have to get smacked in the head with such ideas for them to penetrate, at times.) :oops:

Just think, how much improvement of energy efficiency is possible in computing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle
Literally you can decrease energy consumption of computers millions of times and still get the same results in terms of flops per second before theoretical Landauer's limit is reached.
Imagine a situation where processor of your laptop consumes just microwatts of power so energy sufficient to boil a glass of water would be sufficient for lifelong computing and more and 1kW machine could mine all yet to be uncovered bitcoins within few years.
That is how much gains are possible with improvements of efficiency.
But (as you suspect) engineering is not easy here...

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Dec 2019, 14:32:47
by Newfie
Seems NY is having trouble with Natural Gas also.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... rgy-crunch

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Dec 2019, 15:15:16
by Tanada
Newfie wrote:Seems NY is having trouble BOE with Natural Gas also.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... rgy-crunch


From afar these self inflicted resource problems are amusing. However I fear that incompetence in the coastal states will lead to federal remedial action which will cost those of us with more sense a lot of cash.

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Dec 2019, 16:17:44
by Outcast_Searcher
Newfie wrote:One way is to simply use less.

Clearly, but without actual efficiency gains, only practical to a point, given human nature.

I keep the house warm in summer (77 F) and cool in the winter (66 F). Saves a fair amount of gas and electricity (comparing bills before and after). And not at all difficult, once you get used to it, dress for it, etc. And being retired and not needing to drive much, apparently drive closer to 3000 miles a year than the 4000 I was assuming, just by planning trips, shopping online, etc.

But several of my "green" *** friends (couples) think I'm crazy and refuse to do anything like that re heating/cooling their giant houses, even as they drive their two cars 30,000ish miles a year, fly internationally every year, fly domestically several times a year, etc. And then get upset when I get a top loading washer or use a plastic fork or buy clothes from Walmart. :roll:

Somehow, getting people to be rational re how much they use and the impact doesn't seem to work very well unless you smack them in the wallet, or invent far more efficient devices for them to use to be comfortable or do what they want next time.

...

*** "green" re the IDEA of being green, like buying a front loading washer and a water saving dishwasher and expensive clothes and then assuming they're "saving" the environment (while conveniently ignoring things like transportation).

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Dec 2019, 17:47:01
by Newfie
Outcast,

The problem is not that you are taking these steps. The problem is that many others are NOT taking these same steps. And it’s to those folks my comments were directed.

But also we need to look in the systemic level, how much of your tax dollar goes to inefficient use of resources? The governments need to be a to g conservatively not only to save the planet but to be respectful of the tax dollars we contribute.

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Dec 2019, 17:52:49
by coffeeguyzz
Newfie/Tanada
There is an absolutely fascinating component to this long running drama of self inflicted hydrocarbon scarcity both New York and New England have embraced these past several years.
Specifically, what will/have utilities been cobbling together to ensure adequate supply to their customers?
(Newport, RI fell short for 8,000 residents last winter due to inadequate line pressure).

Answer seems to be unfolding this very moment as the workboat Northeast Endeavor arrived on location yesterday afternoon (12/4) and is still anchored at the Northeast Gateway terminal just outside Bahstin Hahbuh.
Would not surprise me if one of Excelerate's ~10 FSRUs arrive and bail out that region as happened just last winter.

Northeast Gateway is a double yoked terminal that allows FSRUs to anchor and regasify into the system.
There is a pipeline under Long Island Sound from Connecticut to the North Shore that looks like it can supply Brooklyn, Queens, Suffolk and Nassau counties.

The Marine Tracker apps provide real time, 24/7 status of ship activity worlwide.

As I have noted on this site and others, the rapid advances in the LNG world are apt to dramatically upend long standing energy activities in ways yet to be seen.

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Dec 2019, 20:15:40
by Newfie
^^^ thanks

FSRU

Floating LNG
Storage and
Regasification
Unit