|
So just don't use methane as the fuel? It's already got the usability issue of being gas, such that it's only really suitable for networks like residential housing instead of cars.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:You can make jet fuel the same way you make gasoline with water and air. The navy is wxpermenting with doing it on carriers with the excess thermal energy from the reactor. They've wanted something like that for a while. A long time ago as an undergrad we modeled a system that had a hydrogen generator that used the waste heat from a PWR cycle in one of my nuclear engineering classes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Aircraft carriers and submarines are a cool example of what can be done when there's power to spare - effectively unlimited water and oxygen among other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:They've wanted something like that for a while. A long time ago as an undergrad we modeled a system that had a hydrogen generator that used the waste heat from a PWR cycle in one of my nuclear engineering classes. Odd request perhaps, but would you have a good recommendation on textbooks for reactor design and economics? Especially if it has PHWR or the CANDU types. It's on my "to get" list for my engineering textbook library hobby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:When you have environmentalist groups like the NRDC working in secret with oil companies to write climate regulations, I have little hope complex schemes like carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels won’t be similarly undermined. Speaking of this, I heard someone claim that the NRDC was in part founded by a oil a a wealthy oilman to help kill off competition (in this case, nuclear). Can anyone comment on this, or was this pure tinfoil hat nuttery?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Agreed, my point was more that we need to have a fuel with a similar energy density and composition as avtur. Hopefully this is achievable with renewable energy inputs, soon. We already have that, it's called kerosene. edit: To be more concise, any hydrocarbon is synthesisable by using H2O and CO2 as an input. You just toss the oxygen out and make whatever hydrocarbon chain you desire. Obviously kerosene is a blend of various hydrocarbons and comes in various grades, but you can make a hydrocarbon that has the same properties. Anyways, the point is it's achievable now. Making kerosene, or gasoline, or any hydrocarbon is basically the same. Even if your process doesn't yield the right type of hydrocarbon, you can still do chemistry to make it what you want. In fact, we already do a lot of that hydrocarbon chemistry already when we refine fuels and make chemicals. It's all cracking long chains or pushing small chains together. Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Dec 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
The Dipshit posted:Odd request perhaps, but would you have a good recommendation on textbooks for reactor design and economics? Especially if it has PHWR or the CANDU types. It's on my "to get" list for my engineering textbook library hobby. We used ISBN 978-1-4613-5866-4 Nuclear Reactor Engineering, Glasstone and Sesonske
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:If we choose to go this method, as opposed to directly using electricity in batteries for transport, we could also choose a cleaner burning fuel than gasoline. Ethanol is probably the immediate candidate, but probably anything from the alcohol family would be good. Most engines can be tuned for it, and we already mandate E85 in new vehicles/engines. Aviation is probably the technically hardest area to replace fuels in. While granted turbines are not all that fussy about what they burn, energy density alone means replacing Jet-A with other fuels is a big, big ask. When it comes to electric generation, we could replace all fossil fuel power plants now with clean alternatives; with aviation, the opposite is true. Unless you assume radically higher density energy storage for batteries, electric aircraft are a PR stunt. Some good news, all the same: the aviation industry has been obsessed with fuel economy for decades, and new engines are staggeringly efficient. TL;DR if you believe in working from the low hanging fruit first, it's gonna be a long time before aircraft get within range. The only aircraft that can adopt fuel cells right now? Airships. While I suppose you could pick all sorts of fuel for fuel cells, airships are the only aircraft (hell, maybe the only vehicle) that could happy run on hydrogen gas, as it could store the gas in large external cells that would add to its static lift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Aviation is probably the technically hardest area to replace fuels in. While granted turbines are not all that fussy about what they burn, energy density alone means replacing Jet-A with other fuels is a big, big ask. Related article from a few months back: quote:Energy density — the amount of energy stored in a given system — is the key metric, and today’s batteries don’t contain enough energy to get most planes off the ground. To weigh it out: jet fuel gives us about 43 times more energy than a battery that’s just as heavy. https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/14/17686706/electric-airplane-flying-car-battery-weight-green-energy-travel
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Related article from a few months back: What's more, an aircraft reduces its weight as it consumes the fuel. Batteries don't get lighter. Still, battery aircraft already make sense as General Aviation Trainers (far lower fuel and TCO), and may eventually make sense for General Aviation in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:We used ISBN 978-1-4613-5866-4 Nuclear Reactor Engineering, Glasstone and Sesonske Thanks, on my "to buy" list now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Aircraft carriers and submarines are a cool example of what can be done when there's power to spare - effectively unlimited water and oxygen among other things. Wow, that's awesome! We should really use whatever those ships use for power, but for civilian purposes too!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:What's more, an aircraft reduces its weight as it consumes the fuel. Batteries don't get lighter. You can try floating that in the Aeronautical Insanity thread, but don't be surprised if it goes down a little spicy
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
IronClaymore posted:Wow, that's awesome! We should really use whatever those ships use for power, but for civilian purposes too! I'm honestly curious if this refining could happen with the leftover slack power plants otherwise just discharge into the earth at three AM
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm honestly curious if this refining could happen with the leftover slack power plants otherwise just discharge into the earth at three AM Sure, most of the proposals talk about using excess wind or solar for those kinds of plans since overbuilding them is so cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:You can try floating that in the Aeronautical Insanity thread, but don't be surprised if it goes down a little spicy We'll see how this plays out in the next decade, but there are battery based trainers now being offered. The schools hold on to aircraft for a long time, so this won't be like autos. Will take far longer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sure, most of the proposals talk about using excess wind or solar for those kinds of plans since overbuilding them is so cheap. It’s probably absurdly impractical, but carbon mitigation by using excess solar/wind capacity to pull Oil out of the air would be pretty cool. Just put it in a barrel and bury it somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:It’s probably absurdly impractical, but carbon mitigation by using excess solar/wind capacity to pull Oil out of the air would be pretty cool. Just put it in a barrel and bury it somewhere. Pump manmade crude back down the wells 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
VideoGameVet posted:We'll see how this plays out in the next decade, but there are battery based trainers now being offered. Whats the range, useful load and charge time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:It’s probably absurdly impractical, but carbon mitigation by using excess solar/wind capacity to pull Oil out of the air would be pretty cool. Just put it in a barrel and bury it somewhere. poo poo, at this point it’s highly likely we will have to do something equivalent to that in addition to completely transforming our economy. If it’s too expensive we’re just going to have to eat the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:It’s probably absurdly impractical, but carbon mitigation by using excess solar/wind capacity to pull Oil out of the air would be pretty cool. Just put it in a barrel and bury it somewhere. The most comical way to solve the renewable storeable energy problem
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Whats the range, useful load and charge time? Let me get the specs on the one I have seen: Pipistrel Alpha Electro 2-seat electric trainer: Payload: 200 kg Endurance: Up to 60 min (+ reserve). Take off over 50' obstacle MTOW: 885 feet (270 m) The 17 kWh battery pack is dual-redundant and designed to be either quickly replaceable within minutes (swappable) or charged in less than one hour. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:poo poo, at this point it’s highly likely we will have to do something equivalent to that in addition to completely transforming our economy. If it’s too expensive we’re just going to have to eat the cost. I don't know if this pilot factory worked or not... but apparently build with it! https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/building-materials-from-carbon-dioxide-emissions_o
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The most comical way to solve the renewable storeable energy problem Optional: place billionaires in the barrels before burying them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
as stupid as it sounds we are absolutely 100% past the point where we need "reverse oil wells" where we synthesize liquid hydrocarbons and then pump it back down into them which may sound dumb, but once you "get" it then you realize just how much dumber the general notion of carbon capture is than simply stop pumping/burning the poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Let me get the specs on the one I have seen: That aircraft appears to be incapable of the 100nm cross country flight required for a PPL?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That aircraft appears to be incapable of the 100nm cross country flight required for a PPL? Nah it can easily clear 100 nanometers.  Looks like it's got a pretty good glide profile. Just wait for a day with good thermals!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Just eject the batteries as they run out to save weight, if over land they can be turned in for a deposit by scavenging rural children, if over the ocean then it's legal and fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Just eject the batteries as they run out to save weight, if over land they can be turned in for a deposit by scavenging rural children, if over the ocean then it's legal and fun. But if you do that they can hurt someone. You have to eject them upward, into the sun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:as stupid as it sounds we are absolutely 100% past the point where we need "reverse oil wells" where we synthesize liquid hydrocarbons and then pump it back down into them You got the order wrong. Permanent carbon capture requires stopping the usage of fossil fuels in exchange. Using fossil fuels to capture carbon would be idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:You got the order wrong. my whole point is that the order is wrong i said nothing of using fossil fuels to power it for someone with "Lurking" in your name you should... more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:my whole point is that the order is wrong You wrote that "simply stopping pumping/burning that poo poo" is better than the general notion of carbon capture. "Reverse oil wells" require that you "stop pumping/burning that poo poo". What would be the point if you pump in what you pump out? You have to be carbon neutral in energy generation to be carbon negative in carbon capture. Your stabbin' skills are lacking. Or maybe I just didn't "get" it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Even if we all magically woke up to an entirely carbon neutral world tomorrow morning, it would still be smart (although much less pressing) to start sucking carbon back out of the air and restore the planet to pre-industrial levels. Carbon capture isn't gonna solve the immediate pressing problem but it's still cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Or maybe I just didn't "get" it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Even if we all magically woke up to an entirely carbon neutral world tomorrow morning, it would still be smart (although much less pressing) to start sucking carbon back out of the air and restore the planet to pre-industrial levels. Carbon capture isn't gonna solve the immediate pressing problem but it's still cool and good. Yeah the danger to carbon capture plans comes entirely around deploying it to allow the continued use of carbon emitting technologies. I completely understand why its hard to separate the two when we all know some of the most powerful industries in the world will be pushing hard to market "carbon neutral" gasoline. Guess which industry wants us to pay big bucks to put carbon in the same geologic formations they emptied to pollute the carbon in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Given the skill set involved, we'll probably be paying those companies to pump carbon into the ground anyways, since they're the ones with the work force around drilling and moving liquids. Anyways, its kind of our own fault we didnt slap a 300% tax on gas 30 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Given the skill set involved, we'll probably be paying those companies to pump carbon into the ground anyways, since they're the ones with the work force around drilling and moving liquids. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah the danger to carbon capture plans comes entirely around deploying it to allow the continued use of carbon emitting technologies. I completely understand why its hard to separate the two when we all know some of the most powerful industries in the world will be pushing hard to market "carbon neutral" gasoline. Carbon capture and sequestration in the "reverse oil well" sense as discussed on this page seems to me like it is inevitable eventually, assuming we can get to zero emissions first. Like in our wildest dreams where we somehow wrest control of the world away from billionaires, completely de-carbonize our electrical grid and manage to get emissions down to zero by 2050, we'd still be inhabiting a planet with dangerously elevated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. At that point we will still want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Somehow we'll create the mother of all oil spills in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Killing all billionaires& burrying their carcasses in the ocean floor is the only type of carbon sequestration we have around here, comrade 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 12:47
|
|
