arklab Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Sounds like it's about time for that "magic pill" to show up again. You know, the one that lets you run your car on water. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanguineI Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Heres a question though, and please feel free to laugh if you want. Since that ethanol that they make from corn (and other stuff I assume) is being proported as a replacement for fossil fuels used in automobiles, is there any way to utilize that to power these powerplants? It sort of seems like solving a problem with another problem, but at least ethanol would be a renewable energy source (and presumably cleaner). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry_Games Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 i honestly think nuclear power is the way to go look at France...something like 70% or more of their power comes from nuclear power and I can't remember the last nuclear accident or cancer craze they had because of it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red930 Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline which is why it's used as a "knock" inhibitor or octane booster in concentrations up to 15%. The E85 variant has 85% Ethanol which reduces your gas mileage proportionally even more than regular pump gas with 15% Ethanol added. Here's some good info on E85... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85 Now here's a key to commercial production of electricity. Every electric power generator, outside of Hydro and Wind, uses steam to drive turbines which in turn drive the generator. Water boils at 212 degrees F in the atmosphere so power plants normally pressurize the water to get a greater heat content(think pressure cooker). You want to keep the temp of combustion as close to the temp of the steam to minimize the heat loss due to bypass or waste. Now there are some combined loop systems that reduce bypass but the added complexity reduces the efficiency at the same time. You don't want an energy source that burns really fast because you will lose the heat of combustion when you just want to boil water. This is why Natural Gas and Coal are such good sources for commercial power generation. To burn efficiently, Ethanol requires a very high burn rate leaving a lot of waste in the process. Think about grilling steaks over charcoal. They burn hot but slow and you get a lot of surface area. Now imagine using a cup of ethanol better known as Sterno. The same amount of energy is expended but the Sterno has a concentrated burn compared to the charcoal. Sterno is great for spot heating but that's about it. Another problem is the source of the Ethanol. In Brazil they've got 27,000 square miles of farmland converted to sugarcane production for conversion to Ethanol. That's a land area roughly the size of Maryland or the entire country of Belgium. This has caused a greater loss of rainforest than anyone estimated. Heres a question though, and please feel free to laugh if you want. Since that ethanol that they make from corn (and other stuff I assume) is being proported as a replacement for fossil fuels used in automobiles, is there any way to utilize that to power these powerplants? It sort of seems like solving a problem with another problem, but at least ethanol would be a renewable energy source (and presumably cleaner). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red930 Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 i honestly think nuclear power is the way to go What HG said... New nuclear technology is the way to go. Pebble Bed Reactors have shown great promise if we can only get over the NIMBY factor. Pebble Bed Reactors... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor NIMBY... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimby See Also; CAVE people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAVE_People and BANANA people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BANANA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3M0n Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Ok, I understand now... The things I was talking about would run easily off of a battery or 2 though and you really would just put water in your tank and go if they work as the inventors say that they do. In fact... The hydrogen producing machines that they were talking about actually generate MORE energy than is needed to run the thing in the first place by anywhere from 115% to above 900%. That is why these machines are of such interest. They create power for much less energy consumed, so if they were utilized in the power plants, then the fossil fuels would have to begin the reaction, but as long as you never shut it down they would never have to be used again. It would simply power itself and provide an excess of power even after doing that. The show actually scrutinized the machines stating that it is scientifically impossible according to the laws of conservation of energy and motion to have a machine that can put out more energy than it takes to run it. Apparently, scientists refuse to work on this sort of project because of funding issues. They are much more likely to get funding by studying quarks and leptons and neutrinos than by studying a supposedly impossible machine. It did make a quite convincing case for the validity of the machines though. I'll have to see if I can figure out what that address was so I can post it and you can watch it for yourself. It's a very interesting show... because it takes fossil fuels to convert the HYDROGEN that is used as a fuel source in hydrogen engines you don't just put water in a tank and go... edit: ExRoadie said it before and better than I did Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branjo Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 In answer to your question Wev yes, I have been shot at via the good old AK47 , I have seen bombs go off Killing people, saw people shot, killed and wounded. felt the air been forced out of my lungs when a bomb does go off nearby and seen bodies with the clothes completely blown of them from the blast There is no guts needed to pull a trigger and certainly no honor in taking another life. no matter what role you play in an army the result of your actions is anothers death. whether your holding a gun, pushing buttons or fixing vehicles they all play the part. the point is im not really that concerned why anyone wants to join the armed forces anymore thats for them and their psychiatrist but it annoys the hell out of me when they are sent to a country for no real reason at all Our troops are no more than goverment muscle now and although some see great pride in seeing there sons and daughters go off in ships ready to defend democracy Id like to know if the reason we are sending them is 100% necessary. I dont give a . whether your American Chinese British Iraqi Indian or any other nationality, your life and your way of life is of no greater importance than anothers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red930 Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 The hydrogen producing machines that they were talking about actually generate MORE energy than is needed to run the thing in the first place by anywhere from 115% to above 900%. Cold Fusion is a possible source for your info... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry_Games Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Ok, I understand now... The things I was talking about would run easily off of a battery or 2 though and you really would just put water in your tank and go if they work as the inventors say that they do. In fact... The hydrogen producing machines that they were talking about actually generate MORE energy than is needed to run the thing in the first place by anywhere from 115% to above 900%. That is why these machines are of such interest. They create power for much less energy consumed, so if they were utilized in the power plants, then the fossil fuels would have to begin the reaction, but as long as you never shut it down they would never have to be used again. It would simply power itself and provide an excess of power even after doing that. The show actually scrutinized the machines stating that it is scientifically impossible according to the laws of conservation of energy and motion to have a machine that can put out more energy than it takes to run it. Apparently, scientists refuse to work on this sort of project because of funding issues. They are much more likely to get funding by studying quarks and leptons and neutrinos than by studying a supposedly impossible machine. It did make a quite convincing case for the validity of the machines though. I'll have to see if I can figure out what that address was so I can post it and you can watch it for yourself. It's a very interesting show... lets put it this way if these fantastical devices were even close to being realistic, someone, somewhere, would pop out with them and the world would be driving hard to mass produce them and shift us over to them away from fossil fuel burning engines. Most especially Euros or Japan, because they actually care about moving away from gas and oil and they are more 'green' than we are when it comes to such things (generally anyway). But that is all the thing you watched is...a fantasy. as I said, if it was real, we'd be hearing about it everywhere...but it is still theoretical, or the not feasible, etc. We are always looking for the fantastical quick-fix solutions, and we tend to focus on these sort of things without really giving them any thought as to how realistic the technology is (sorta like dorks sitting around arguing about Transporter technology in star trek). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanguineI Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 What exactly is preventing more nuclear powerplants from being constructed in this country? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry_Games Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 In answer to your question Wev yes, I have been shot at via the good old AK47 , I have seen bombs go off Killing people, saw people shot, killed and wounded. felt the air been forced out of my lungs when a bomb does go off nearby and seen bodies with the clothes completely blown of them from the blast There is no guts needed to pull a trigger and certainly no honor in taking another life. no matter what role you play in an army the result of your actions is anothers death. whether your holding a gun, pushing buttons or fixing vehicles they all play the part. the point is im not really that concerned why anyone wants to join the armed forces anymore thats for them and their psychiatrist but it annoys the hell out of me when they are sent to a country for no real reason at all Our troops are no more than goverment muscle now and although some see great pride in seeing there sons and daughters go off in ships ready to defend democracy Id like to know if the reason we are sending them is 100% necessary. I dont give a . whether your American Chinese British Iraqi Indian or any other nationality, your life and your way of life is of no greater importance than anothers not to burst your bubble or anything, but even a passive type like me sees the importance of having a standing army, and I see the importance of having to kill another human at times. If we'd said "killing is bad, m'kay" during WW1 and WW2, we'd all be living under the 3rd Reich or German imperialism. I for one like Germany much better than I do now. We'd also maybe still be living under British rule (though at some point like every other country in the Empire, we'd have gotten our freedom). Or maybe Spanish rule if we didn't fight them. Or maybe who knows. I don't like killing any more than the next guy, and I do find it offensive and wrong when it seems senseless and/or pointless. But I also find it more offensive when people talk about not killing at all, not having armies, etc, like we live in this world where everyone is peaceful and full of good intent. I may not agree with current wars, but I have a strong opinion that says we definitely need to be ready to kill and sometimes we must kill. I'm pretty sure I'd kill another human if my life or momma's life or anyone in my family's life was in danger....real danger, not tv/movie danger lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTjik Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Our troops are no more than goverment muscle now and although some see great pride in seeing there sons and daughters go off in ships ready to defend democracy Id like to know if the reason we are sending them is 100% necessary. HG, I think the word "now" in the written above was intended to make that same distinction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now