View Full Version : Bio fuels ??
peter macdonald
25-Nov-07, 14:29
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/25/zubrin_energy_terror_alcohol_plan/
I wont make comment on this as Im not a chemist but it sounds interesting
PM
Welcomefamily
25-Nov-07, 15:09
The benefit of such bio fuels are they are home grown, and removes that dependancy on the middle East, Its a good concept as removing the USA market out of the oil equation, I wonder how long the oil price and production could be held up before one of the smaller countries has to break away.
orkneylass
25-Nov-07, 15:40
What happens when the west's demand for bio fuels hits the 3rd world's ability to grow crops for food?
What happens when the west's demand for bio fuels hits the 3rd world's ability to grow crops for food?
People in the 3rd world will die in large numbers.
Algae farming offers great opportunities, some species are over 50% oil, doesn't take up land used for food production.
On land hemp would be a good prospect, 1,500 litres of oil per ha and the remaining biomass can be burnt or fermented into ethanol and methanol. Very fast growing on poor soils and in poor weather, self fertilising.
I’m quite serious when I think this is a real possibility, and I know it sounds too good to be true but has anyone heard of the water powered internal combustion engine? I was reading up on it recently and found it most fascinating.
If such a machine really were possible then it would solve many of the world’s problems in one go, in fact it would have to count as one of the single-most contributions anyone could ever give to the world. Imagine no more dependence on fuel, and imagine electricity for everyone greatly aiding the African dream (prosperity).
But how does it work? Well, there haven’t been many inventors who claimed to have such an engine, but there are plenty of critiques who laugh a lot whenever those inventors step forward. Naturally, it’s a seemingly preposterous notion. But therein the skeptics err I think, after all, what of the heavier than air machine before the 20th century? Those who laughed thought that impossible and now it’s quite common to board Boing 747s and Airbus A380s.
But moving on, the science of the matter is quite straightforward really. It is not actually water that would be burnt in the engine, amazingly, water is only the waste product of this contraption. The real innovation is in whether it’s easily possible to split hydrogen from the water molecules, since hydrogen is what will be channeled into the combustion chamber, and only very little of the stuff too because hydrogen is 700x more volatile than fossil fuel! Now, conventional high-school wisdom tells us that to do this we need vast amounts of energy to heat up the water and so forth, however, from the inventors videos there apparently seems to be another way, which needs only a low current, and a low voltage such as can be drawn from a car battery even to split the hydrogen from the water.
How does it work? I don’t know, and I can’t be certain if there really is such a way because seeing it on a video is different to seeing it in person, but I can theorize. Perhaps frequencies are used, maybe radio like a microwave oven. Frequencies are very powerful and greatly underestimated, sound waves from an opera singer can shatter crystal, so why so wacky to assume that a particular wave-length will split the two molecules in water?
If it really were true it cannot be underestimated how amazing it would be! Not only abundant energy for all but the real solving of many supposed emission problems in the world too. Plus, because of the volatile nature of hydrogen 1 litre of water would certainly give you more miles than 1 litre of fossil fuel when you only have to consider how little is required in the combustion chamber.
Sadly though, with oil being a $200,000,000,000 a year industry in the US there would be many possible opponents, plus how could you tax water? Especially considering that if the hydrogen splitter really does work then it will go on both snow and salt-water! Running the most efficiently on salt water apparently!
Want to see some videos? Google Video “Water Powered Car” and all of the first page entries are quite good.
The main power source of the future is more likely to be hydrogen power. It is 100% non-polloutant and is abundent and cheap to produce.
When Hydrogen(H) is combusted with Oxygen(O) in the combustion engine the following takes place.
2H2 + O2 -----> 2H2O
The only product formed is water, in the form of steam which will drift into the atmosphere and cool and then return to earth as water in the liquid form. The water can then have an electric current passed through to split it into its 2 compnents H2 and O2 again the O2 can be realeased into the atmoshere and the H2 put back into the fuel supply. The only problems with a Hydrogen Economy is the power output of the engine but major car manufactuers are now starting to look into this and the second problem is with the safe storage of hydrogen. Although slightly more problematic it is also being looked into.
I don't want to put the kaibosch on any energy revolution but any notion of putting water into a car then going 'va va voom' is just fantasy and best seen on Youtube.
Firstly, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is an endothermic reaction, you need energy to do it, it won't liberate energy in a millions or more years so it can never be used as a fuel.
However, water could be used as a feedstock for the production of hydrogen which can be used as a fuel. One of the obstacles to make this energetically and economically feasible is the threshold energy which is needed to get water to split into its elemental components. This is being rigorously researched but with using certain rare and precious metals, all of which are subject to poisoning in the catalytical chemical process, another economic obstacle. That is why current renewable energy sources aren't being used for the liberation of hydrogen for fuels on a commercial basis.
I don't want to put the kaibosch on any energy revolution but any notion of putting water into a car then going 'va va voom' is just fantasy and best seen on Youtube.
Water and empty beer cans would work.
Firstly, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is an endothermic reaction, you need energy to do it, it won't liberate energy in a millions or more years so it can never be used as a fuel.
Well lets just say that we crack Fusion. Why couldn't we use the electricity it generates to perform electrolysis on the water to split it up into the Hydrogen and Oxygen? All it needs is a clean way to produce electricity. Unfortunately we just need some very good clean, renewable power sources for it to become a reality. But never the less it is possible.
Water and empty beer cans would work.Ok, I'll ask...
Why would this work and what would it do?
Ok, I'll ask...
Why would this work and what would it do?
Aluminium is very reactive, put it in water and it will take the oxygen atom out and leave the hydrogen to run the car on. The only snag is that the first aluminium to oxidize forms a non reactive protective layer but that's easily overcome if you have thin aluminium, like a beer can, and you add something to the water to stop the layer of oxide forming.
I'm working on a prototype with a chute to drop the cans down and I'm in training, I'll have to drink fast to get a bit of speed up.
Aluminium is very reactive, put it in water and it will take the oxygen atom out and leave the hydrogen to run the car on. The only snag is that the first aluminium to oxidize forms a non reactive protective layer but that's easily overcome if you have thin aluminium, like a beer can, and you add something to the water to stop the layer of oxide forming.
I'm working on a prototype with a chute to drop the cans down and I'm in training, I'll have to drink fast to get a bit of speed up.I'm not sure you'll need to increase your drinking rate unless you can increase the rate of production of hydrogen. But it's a good excuse. ;)
Moi x
Aluminium is very reactive
Its not that reactive? Not enough to be used as a source for hydrogen when placed in water. Its almost at the top of the reactivity list but is still not feasible enough. It would really need to react with an acid. But that would probably form harmful chemicals.
Potassium
Sodium
Lithium
Calcium
Magnesium
Aluminium
Zinc
Iron
Tin
Lead
Hydrogen
Copper
Mercury
Silver
Gold
Platinum
Water and empty beer cans would work.
Beer cans would be better recycled.
Thats very true. The energy saved by recycling could then be used for other things.
Its not that reactive? Not enough to be used as a source for hydrogen when placed in water. Its almost at the top of the reactivity list but is still not feasible enough. It would really need to react with an acid. But that would probably form harmful chemicals.
I wasn't entirely serious about a car with a chute to drop beer cans down.
The principle is sound though, there are power plants in the world with the sole purpose of producing the huge amounts of electricity needed to turn the aluminium oxide we mine into pure aluminium and that energy can be recovered from the scrap aluminium after we have used it in the form of hydrogen and heat.
There are ways to speed up the process, gallium has a low melting point and will readily dissolve aluminium, using this alloy avoids problems with build up of oxide. The gallium does not react so can be easily recovered, a sort of catalyst. The only waste product is aluminium oxide which cheap surplus hydro, tide or wind generated electricity can turn back into beer cans for us. All that comes out of the exhaust pipe of the engine running on hydrogen is water.
Are you being serious now fred? I haven't studied chemistry since sixth year at school and, anyway, I don't think it equipped me to deal with this level of sophistication.
Mr_Me19, I haven't seen a reactivity table since I was at school. I could reel them off without a second thought in those days and I thought I understood their origin but I've forgotten it all. Oooh, it's coming back, it's to do with unpaired electrons in the outer shell if I remember correctly. Potassium, sodium and lithium have one, calcium and magnesium have two, but I forget the rest. Can anyone explain why potassium and sodium are at the top? Why is lithium below them?
Are you being serious now fred? I haven't studied chemistry since sixth year at school and, anyway, I don't think it equipped me to deal with this level of sophistication.
Yes I'm being serious.
Thats very true. The energy saved by recycling could then be used for other things.
The energy saved is at a huge hydro plant in the middle of a jungle in Africa, how were you thinking of getting it here?
Even after the aluminium is oxidised it can still be recycled cheaper than using mined aluminium and places like Caithness are going to have a huge surplus of wind and tide generated electricity that would be difficult to get to where it's needed.
We produce the aluminium and ship it south, they use it then extract the energy we put in and use it down there then send the oxide back to be made into aluminium again.
That is recycling isn't it? And not an atom of carbon in sight.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.