F1technical.net

the best example of the interests of politicians perverting technology policy is surely so-called 'carbon capture and storage'
vast pipes are being installed so CO2 could be pumped to perpetual and ever-increasing storage under the North sea
though CCS is surely a fiction (telling the politicians what they ask to be told)

a leak of nuclear waste could kill a few people
a leak of waste CO2 could kill millions, in a few hours (including me)

CCS would greatly reduce efficiency and so increase fossil fuel consumption and capital expenditure to maintain capacity

btw .... new, improved Photovoltaic (solar) cells are to have Tellurium compounds as an active ingredient
.... so when they degrade after 15-20 years in the sunshine the host region is covered in a fine and toxic dust

Andres125sx wrote:
...

I understand what you mean, wind energy is not constant so it could never replace energy plants we currently use. Agree. But nobody is trying this, wind turbines are just one of the sources of renewable energy we can use. To replace all the fossil fuels we do need all the renewable energies we can use, including wind turbines.

So if you think about wind turbines as the only replacement for fossil fuels, then I agree, they´re useless. But that´s far from realistic, wind turbines are just a part of the renewable energies, and since they´re only a percentage the lack of consistency is not a problem because it is compensated easily.

So wind energy does not replace fossil fuels by itself, but is a good help replacing fossil fuels, wich is the point of any renewable energy

What about the cost factor involved in the bolded part? If they have to be compensated for lack of consistency then why bother with the extra cost of erecting wind turbines in the first place. Wouldn't it then be better to go straight to other technologies that would better fulfill this roll. For sunny areas concentrated solar power is an alternative to provide more consistent energy. As a small percentage of the overall energy requirement this could work.
The biggest problem with renewable energy is its ability to take over base load generation. It would be too expensive, inconsistent, and cover a large area. If you are serious about quickly bringing down the CO2 emissions you have to embrace Nuclear Power. It has its own problem, but those are made out to be much larger than they actually are. The big advantage is no CO2 emissions at the plant itself and has the ability to take over base load energy generation.

Not to turn this into a nuclear power discussion there was a good discussion with many good points in this old thread: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... lear+Solar
Unfortunately also has a lot of mudslinging but has many good points if you have the time to read through it.

That reminds me of a terrible schoolboy joke about books with silly titles - "Mud on the windows" by Hu Flung Dung

The trouble is that once politics gets involved in an issue we're one step removed from ideology, the arguments get polarised.

So lets lob some pragmatic ideas in to disrupt the "nuclear is evil", "no you're evil", "think of the children!" debate....

1 - Use less energy. You see I have a magic way to create energy equivalent to 10,000 new homes. Demolish 20,000 houses from the last century, then rebuild them with this wacky stuff called insulation so they use half the energy to keep warm. All the houses in this picture will have solid brick walls with no insulation. When I moved from a terrace like that to a new detached house with 50% more floor area (ie more than doubling the exposed surface) , my heating bills went down by 30%. So halving the energy should be a doddle for a terrace of the same size.

Actually, halving the energy is silly, the target should be 20%, ie 80% less. That's generous bearing in mind passivhouse is now achievable (although not in all areas, I'll save that rant for another time).

They'd be nicer to live in and worth more, so the resale book value combined with lifetime energy savings will pay for the construction.



2 - Reduce the losses getting that energy to your door - less centralised power, more urban CHP, electric cars as short term storage to smooth diurnal demand.

3 - Have a balanced energy mix - as far as current technology goes that means a mix of dirty and clean supplies for the next few decades.

4 - Mandate CHP for all domestic developments more than 25 houses - its cheaper than each house burning gas and electricity.

6 - Use the furnace that is constantly running beneath our feet. Why are we burning gas to heat our homes when there's hot water in the ground below my feet? Community heating would make this worthwhile.

7 - Utilise that great big generator that circles the earth. Some people call it the moon, I see it as a huuuuuge flywheel stuffed with idle potential energy . It's as regular as clockwork, unaffected by weather.

Now lets think of the engineering of these issues, not the politics.

Arterius wrote:

Andres125sx wrote:
...

I understand what you mean, wind energy is not constant so it could never replace energy plants we currently use. Agree. But nobody is trying this, wind turbines are just one of the sources of renewable energy we can use. To replace all the fossil fuels we do need all the renewable energies we can use, including wind turbines.

So if you think about wind turbines as the only replacement for fossil fuels, then I agree, they´re useless. But that´s far from realistic, wind turbines are just a part of the renewable energies, and since they´re only a percentage the lack of consistency is not a problem because it is compensated easily.

So wind energy does not replace fossil fuels by itself, but is a good help replacing fossil fuels, wich is the point of any renewable energy

What about the cost factor involved in the bolded part? If they have to be compensated for lack of consistency then why bother with the extra cost of erecting wind turbines in the first place.

Compensating the production of electricity is something they have to do no matter what´s the consistency of the source. Energy must be produced in the exatly same ammount it´s demanded, so the "global output" is continuously adjusted and wind turbines don´t add any new problem, they have to do what they always do, with or without wind turbines

Arterius wrote:If you are serious about quickly bringing down the CO2 emissions you have to embrace Nuclear Power.

And that´s what I do. I´ve never criticized nuclear energy. Would love if we don´t need it, but reality is we do need it.

We have to replace fossil fuel plants first, when/if we achieve this, then we will talk about nuclear power, but today we need nuclear power.

I´ve post it here (or in the post where this discussion began), to criticize nuclear power we should be prepared to return to 19th century with no mobile phones, no laptops, no tablets, no electric gadgets in the kitchen... but if we´re not prepared for this, we can´t criticize nuclear plants

richard_leeds wrote:That reminds me of a terrible schoolboy joke about books with silly titles - "Mud on the windows" by Hu Flung Dung

The trouble is that once politics gets involved in an issue we're one step removed from ideology, the arguments get polarised.

So lets lob some pragmatic ideas in to disrupt the "nuclear is evil", "no you're evil", "think of the children!" debate....

I don´t see that sort of debate here, we´re discussing, that´s all....

richard_leeds wrote: 1 - Use less energy. You see I have a magic way to create energy equivalent to 10,000 new homes. Demolish 20,000 houses from the last century, then rebuild them with this wacky stuff called insulation so they use half the energy to keep warm. All the houses in this picture will have solid brick walls with no insulation. When I moved from a terrace like that to a new detached house with 50% more floor area (ie more than doubling the exposed surface) , my heating bills went down by 30%. So halving the energy should be a doddle for a terrace of the same size.

Actually, halving the energy is silly, the target should be 20%, ie 80% less. That's generous bearing in mind passivhouse is now achievable (although not in all areas, I'll save that rant for another time).

They'd be nicer to live in and worth more, so the resale book value combined with lifetime energy savings will pay for the construction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4689 ... ground.jpg

2 - Reduce the losses getting that energy to your door - less centralised power, more urban CHP, electric cars as short term storage to smooth diurnal demand.

3 - Have a balanced energy mix - as far as current technology goes that means a mix of dirty and clean supplies for the next few decades.

4 - Mandate CHP for all domestic developments more than 25 houses - its cheaper than each house burning gas and electricity.

6 - Use the furnace that is constantly running beneath our feet. Why are we burning gas to heat our homes when there's hot water in the ground below my feet? Community heating would make this worthwhile.

7 - Utilise that great big generator that circles the earth. Some people call it the moon, I see it as a huuuuuge flywheel stuffed with idle potential energy . It's as regular as clockwork, unaffected by weather.

Now lets think of the engineering of these issues, not the politics.

Agree on every point, but IMHO that´s related to efficiency and final use more than energy distribution and generation.

Renewable energies are not only those that generate electricity for the national network. Solar panels in the roof of your house to heat the water and radiators is also renewable energy. A wind turbine or fotovoltaic panels in your house also are renewable energies, you can heat your house with geothermal energy... and all of this options reduce the power demand what means the emissions are also reduced


There are tons of things we can improve, I agree, but the main point now IMHO should be replacing fossil fuels as this is the factor that have caused the environement unbalance. That´s what we should focus on because we´re not talking about possible future problems, we´re talking about a huge problem that exist today

http://www.minds.com/blog/view/25090006 ... rn-ireland

Interesting product.

autogyro wrote:http://www.minds.com/blog/view/25090006 ... rn-ireland

Interesting product.

Yes, that´s a really nice idea.

If we want, we could replace fossil fuels quite fast (for such a big change ). There are so many ways to get renewable energy (and we discover new ones continuously) it´s not crazy to think they could replace fossil fuels.

The only problem is ourselves, we can support them, or we can focus on every little problem they have to despise them. This is a very common attitude I´m afraid, if it´s not perfect all around, it´s criticized hardly even if its problems are nuts compared to fossil fuels´ problems

We need to be conviced it´s necessary to do the necessary investment and support all these new projects and specially its stablishment, wich is most dificult part.


Another one, wave farms, there are many projects to utilize waves

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info ... 500-homes/

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info ... the-waves/

I think Cold Fusion could be the future.

NASA is researching it and a guy named Rossi had his E-cat reviewed by some Swedish scientists.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2 ... after-all/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw[/youtube]

SectorOne wrote:I think Cold Fusion could be the future.

NASA is researching it and a guy named Rossi had his E-cat reviewed by some Swedish scientists.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2 ... after-all/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw

Interesting science but where is the demonstration?

You mean the review?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

I did some reading on other sites and from what i understand Rossi is a little bit secretive about the technology because he´s planning to sell the E-cat.

But it´s good that he has at least one independent test that seems to confirm that this could actually be true.
We´ll have to wait for more independent tests and reviews.

This is mental if true,

Mod: From Electric propulsion and other musings:
________________________________________________________________________

a musing it is then !

the RSPB (the UK birder club) has made the news this week
pointing out that the billions spent replacing coal burning with wood burning actually increase carbon emissions and global warming

the Drax power station generates 7% of UK electricity and has just made a big step in their huge programme
the nice lady CEO tells us that wood has 20% of the carbon cost of coal
(wood pellets are very low in energy density, imported from the USA, several times as much shipping and rail capacity is used)
she doesn't tell us that 20% will only happen in 40 years when the replacement trees have grown to cropping size

for decades before then the carbon emissions will have been increased ....
a bogus programme all in the name of carbon saving .... but that's ok as it's called 'Renewables'
the UK has a huge and dynamic Renewables programme
which is basically a national vanity programme, in effect funded by huge and unstainable borrowing
in which the carbon reduction from wind turbines etc is murdered by the increased carbon as above

(and the large majority of our energy need is heat energy, until that changes electricity issues are a diversion)

Tommy Cookers wrote:she doesn't tell us that 20% will only happen in 40 years when the replacement trees have grown to cropping size for decades before then the carbon emissions will have been increased ....
a bogus programme all in the name of carbon saving

No, it's called return on investment, in carbon rather than monetary terms. It's no different to a factory investing a million on new equipment that will save 100k per year. In the short term there is a negative cash flow, in the long term there will be a cash surplus.

You've described a scenario of a fuel source with less carbon content than the current source, hence instant saving at the point of consumption. The overall supply chain takes 20 years to come into balance while the replacement trees grow.

How does that compare to the replenishing rate of fossil fuels?

If you want the read the updates chronologically, scroll down and read from Update #1

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/25/1- ... mpetitive/


http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/27/pa ... t-results/

richard_leeds wrote:

Tommy Cookers wrote:she doesn't tell us that 20% will only happen in 40 years when the replacement trees have grown to cropping size for decades before then the carbon emissions will have been increased ....
a bogus programme all in the name of carbon saving

........ You've described a scenario of a fuel source with less carbon content than the current source, hence instant saving at the point of consumption. The overall supply chain takes 20 years to come into balance while the replacement trees grow......

the energy in wood is almost entirely in the carbon content - as it is with coal
(wood's large oxygen content and most of its (small) hydrogen content has of course no energy availability)
so wood's lower carbon content is totally misleading, there is no 'instant (carbon) saving at the point of consumption'
and coal has about 4 times the (bulk) mass-density of wood pellets, and about 7 times the energy density
so the greater (carbon) cost of transport does push the break-even point to maybe 10-12 years

also new to me, a body of scientific opinion shows that wood fuel has some adverse effects on the climate


and given that heating is the dominant part of fossil fuel consumption
the hot news is that the UK plans to waive all the improved energy efficiency regulation for 100,000 new houses/year
additional to it's current policy or near-universal waivers granted on a case-specific basis

and of course billions are now living on food grown by pumped irrigation with underground non-renewable water
(including one country in this way stealing it's neighbours water)
this may be a bigger and/or more pressing problem

Obviously a coal plant will never be considered renewable energy, no matter if they´re burning coal or wood. They´re only using an existing plant, that´s all