Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #3482 > unrolled thread

Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-02 10:44 +0000
    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-02 23:47 +1000
      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-06-03 15:20 +0100
        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-05 22:14 +1000
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-06-05 20:58 +0100
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-06 11:57 +1000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-06-06 21:14 +0100
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-07 13:24 +1000
                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-06-06 22:49 -0600
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-07 08:33 +0200
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-07 16:44 +1000
    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2014-06-07 22:02 +0100
    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 19:42 +0000
      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-09 22:37 +0100
        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 15:19 -0700
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-09 23:26 +0100
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 15:36 -0700
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-09 23:40 +0100
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 16:12 -0700
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-10 07:44 +0300
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-10 18:47 +0000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-10 23:43 +0300
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 17:12 +0000
                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-11 21:58 +0300
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-18 12:44 -0700
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 17:20 +0000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-11 22:05 +0300
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 20:52 +0000
                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 00:14 +0300
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 15:12 -0700
                      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 09:18 +0300
                      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-12 09:31 +0100
                        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 12:34 +0300
                          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-12 12:37 +0200
                          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 10:39 +0000
                            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 13:56 +0300
                              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 12:10 +0000
                                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 15:32 +0300
                                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-13 12:37 +0000
                                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-13 14:13 +0100
                      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 10:30 +0000
                        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-06-12 10:59 +0000
                          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 12:12 +0000
      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-10 20:42 +1000
        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-10 15:55 +0100
        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-10 18:47 +0000
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-10 23:50 +0300
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 17:13 +0000
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-11 17:23 +0000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-11 22:13 +0300
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-11 19:22 +0000
                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-11 22:39 +0300
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-11 19:54 +0000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-11 22:26 +0100
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 00:47 +0000
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-11 11:57 +1000
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 17:12 +0000
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-06-11 19:21 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#3607

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> All batteries' capacities are measured in amp-hours, and they are
>> measured at their nominal voltage and a proper data sheet will
>> describe discharge curves at different fractions of C. For specialty
>> markets where people are not expected to know ohm's law, such as
>> (ironically) the IT industry, the manufacturers of devices like
>> laptops and UPS's will describe draw and capacity in strange units
>> like volt-amps and kilowatt hours but this is of course not a standard
>> way to talk about batteries. If you don't believe me ask an EE or an
>> amateur radio operator or somebody else who can be expected to know
>> about electronics.
> 
> I hate it that I can't properly compare AA batteries' energy content at
> the store. I don't want to buy bunnies but joules. Amp-hours, just like
> kilowatt-hours and kilometers per hour, have their history, but I would
> drop the hour and use joules and meters per second instead.
> 
> In the US, the standard nutritional information might state:
> 
>      Serving Size 100g
>      Calories ........... 166
> 
> In Europe, that would be:
> 
>      Nutritional value per 100 g
>      Energy ............. 691 kJ/166 kcal
> 
> Again, personally, I would use the specific energy <URL:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_energy>:
> 
>      Specific energy ........... 6.91 MJ/kg
> 
> 
> Marko

Unfortunately joules tells you little about the actual amount of power you
can get from a battery.  You need to see the discharge curves at different
draws to determine that.  At different rates of draw a battery's amp-hour
capacity will vary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3609

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:

> Unfortunately joules tells you little about the actual amount of power
> you can get from a battery. You need to see the discharge curves at
> different draws to determine that. At different rates of draw a
> battery's amp-hour capacity will vary.

That can often be modeled with internal resistance.

I'm fine with the battery manufacturer quoting their idealized joules in
the most favorable conditions, plus some standard internal resistance
value. However, at the moment, I'm given the price per battery without
any idea of how must energy I'm able to eke out of it.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3612

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> Unfortunately joules tells you little about the actual amount of power
>> you can get from a battery. You need to see the discharge curves at
>> different draws to determine that. At different rates of draw a
>> battery's amp-hour capacity will vary.
> 
> That can often be modeled with internal resistance.
> 
> I'm fine with the battery manufacturer quoting their idealized joules in
> the most favorable conditions, plus some standard internal resistance
> value. However, at the moment, I'm given the price per battery without
> any idea of how must energy I'm able to eke out of it.
> 
> 
> Marko

This seems like an awful lot more trouble than using amp-hours and volts,
which both lend themselves to working with electricity and electronics much
more readily than joules.  I suppose it depends on one's background though
- if your experience with electronics and electricity is primarily
theoretical and physics-based, joules may make sense.  If your experience
is more in the realm of applied electrics or electronics, joules would seem
quite alien and unnecessary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3618

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:

> This seems like an awful lot more trouble than using amp-hours and volts,
> which both lend themselves to working with electricity and electronics much
> more readily than joules.

I don't get how hours lend themselves to electricity more readily than
seconds. After all:

   J = VAs

   W = J/s

3600 seems like a cumbersome number to juggle in your head.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3745

On 2014-06-11 18:58:36 +0000, Marko Rauhamaa said:

> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> This seems like an awful lot more trouble than using amp-hours and volts,
>> which both lend themselves to working with electricity and electronics much
>> more readily than joules.
> 
> I don't get how hours lend themselves to electricity more readily than
> seconds. After all:
> 
>    J = VAs
> 
>    W = J/s
> 
> 3600 seems like a cumbersome number to juggle in your head.
> 
> 
> Marko

It seems you are looking at this from a physics perspective after all, 
which explains a lot.

Watts = Volts X Amps.  Why fool with 3600 at all?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3615

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> All batteries' capacities are measured in amp-hours, and they are
>> measured at their nominal voltage and a proper data sheet will
>> describe discharge curves at different fractions of C. For specialty
>> markets where people are not expected to know ohm's law, such as
>> (ironically) the IT industry, the manufacturers of devices like
>> laptops and UPS's will describe draw and capacity in strange units
>> like volt-amps and kilowatt hours but this is of course not a standard
>> way to talk about batteries. If you don't believe me ask an EE or an
>> amateur radio operator or somebody else who can be expected to know
>> about electronics.
> 
> I hate it that I can't properly compare AA batteries' energy content at
> the store. I don't want to buy bunnies but joules. Amp-hours, just like
> kilowatt-hours and kilometers per hour, have their history, but I would
> drop the hour and use joules and meters per second instead.
> 
> In the US, the standard nutritional information might state:
> 
>      Serving Size 100g
>      Calories ........... 166
> 
> In Europe, that would be:
> 
>      Nutritional value per 100 g
>      Energy ............. 691 kJ/166 kcal
> 
> Again, personally, I would use the specific energy <URL:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_energy>:
> 
>      Specific energy ........... 6.91 MJ/kg
> 
> 
> Marko

I seems to me that it would only make sense to measure the nutritional
energy content of foods in calories or joules if we actually burned them in
furnaces in our stomachs.  Imagine that burning a certain amount of
charcoal releases a certain number of calories or joules, and imagine that
burning a certain amount of meat also releases the same energy.  Both
should be equally nutritious as our stomachs are simply furnaces, right?

What we need is a new food energy unit that takes into account the actual,
usable nutritional energy content of a food item.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3619

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:

> I seems to me that it would only make sense to measure the nutritional
> energy content of foods in calories or joules if we actually burned
> them in furnaces in our stomachs.

Not in the stomach but in the cells. Your body is an engine that runs at
50..100 W and releases the heat to its surroundings.

> Imagine that burning a certain amount of charcoal releases a certain
> number of calories or joules, and imagine that burning a certain
> amount of meat also releases the same energy. Both should be equally
> nutritious as our stomachs are simply furnaces, right?

No, that doesn't follow.

> What we need is a new food energy unit that takes into account the
> actual, usable nutritional energy content of a food item.

Why? A joule is a joule is a joule.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3624

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> I seems to me that it would only make sense to measure the nutritional
>> energy content of foods in calories or joules if we actually burned
>> them in furnaces in our stomachs.
> 
> Not in the stomach but in the cells. Your body is an engine that runs at
> 50..100 W and releases the heat to its surroundings.
> 
>> Imagine that burning a certain amount of charcoal releases a certain
>> number of calories or joules, and imagine that burning a certain
>> amount of meat also releases the same energy. Both should be equally
>> nutritious as our stomachs are simply furnaces, right?
> 
> No, that doesn't follow.
> 
>> What we need is a new food energy unit that takes into account the
>> actual, usable nutritional energy content of a food item.
> 
> Why? A joule is a joule is a joule.
> 
> 
> Marko

So it IS your contention that cells "burn" things in tiny furnaces?  I was
under the impression that cells turn ATP into ADP and back again.

No, joules and calories are not useful measures of food energy.  For
example, neither tells you how much of the food item can be actually
digested.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3625

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:

> So it IS your contention that cells "burn" things in tiny furnaces?

Yes, oxidizing being one of the basic meanings of burning.

> I was under the impression that cells turn ATP into ADP and back
> again.

I suppose. Long story short: C + O2 => CO2 + joules.

> No, joules and calories are not useful measures of food energy. For
> example, neither tells you how much of the food item can be actually
> digested.

If you consume 5 MJ per day (as it says on the box), you emit 60 W of
heat on the average.

The quoted energy content refers to the amount of energy a healthy body
gains by metabolizing the food.

Or that's how it should be... <URL: http://www.slate.com/articles/
news_and_politics/explainer/2004/04/how_do_they_measure_calories.html>.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3627

On 2014-06-11 21:14:21 +0000, Marko Rauhamaa said:

> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> So it IS your contention that cells "burn" things in tiny furnaces?
> 
> Yes, oxidizing being one of the basic meanings of burning.

So when rain causes iron to rust underwater it's really burning?

> 
>> I was under the impression that cells turn ATP into ADP and back
>> again.
> 
> I suppose. Long story short: C + O2 => CO2 + joules.

I'm afraid that is not adequate at all.

> 
>> No, joules and calories are not useful measures of food energy. For
>> example, neither tells you how much of the food item can be actually
>> digested.
> 
> If you consume 5 MJ per day (as it says on the box), you emit 60 W of
> heat on the average.
> 
> The quoted energy content refers to the amount of energy a healthy body
> gains by metabolizing the food.
> 
> Or that's how it should be... <URL: http://www.slate.com/articles/
> news_and_politics/explainer/2004/04/how_do_they_measure_calories.html>.
> 
> 
> Marko

I'm aware of the antequated and highly theoretical Atwater system of 
course.  I just don't think it is adequate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3632

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:

> On 2014-06-11 21:14:21 +0000, Marko Rauhamaa said:
>> Yes, oxidizing being one of the basic meanings of burning.
> So when rain causes iron to rust underwater it's really burning?

Yes. <URL:
http://www.highlightskids.com/science-experiment/iron-burns-slowly>


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3633

In article <lnak7k$rc4$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2014-06-11 21:14:21 +0000, Marko Rauhamaa said:
> 
> > Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> > 
> >> So it IS your contention that cells "burn" things in tiny furnaces?
> > 
> > Yes, oxidizing being one of the basic meanings of burning.
> 
> So when rain causes iron to rust underwater it's really burning?

Burning is just oxidation happening very fast. Explosion also, but even
faster. And overall, the same amount of heat is released whether the
oxidation happens quickly or slowly. Why don't you already know this?

I'm reminded of the foolish and ignorant green party candidate, who was
against waste incinerators because of all the CO2 produced, whereas
"allowing stuff to rot down naturally means no CO2 is produced".

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3634

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>:

> I'm reminded of the foolish and ignorant green party candidate, who
> was against waste incinerators because of all the CO2 produced,
> whereas "allowing stuff to rot down naturally means no CO2 is
> produced".

That's why you need to prefer plastic bags to paper ones. Plastic bags
won't rot and thus won't contribute to the CO2 buildup in the
atmosphere.

In fact, I have a perfect idea to counter CO2 emissions: collect it all,
throw away the O2 molecules and compress the C into diamonds. Use the
resulting diamond powder to pave roads.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3636

On 2014-06-12, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>:
>
>> I'm reminded of the foolish and ignorant green party candidate, who
>> was against waste incinerators because of all the CO2 produced,
>> whereas "allowing stuff to rot down naturally means no CO2 is
>> produced".
>
> That's why you need to prefer plastic bags to paper ones. Plastic bags
> won't rot and thus won't contribute to the CO2 buildup in the
> atmosphere.
>
> In fact, I have a perfect idea to counter CO2 emissions: collect it all,
> throw away the O2 molecules and compress the C into diamonds. Use the
> resulting diamond powder to pave roads.

How many windfarms will we need to power the compression process?

:-)

-- 
You can't look at a glass as half full or half empty if it's overflowing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3637

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>:

> > I'm reminded of the foolish and ignorant green party candidate, who
> > was against waste incinerators because of all the CO2 produced,
> > whereas "allowing stuff to rot down naturally means no CO2 is
> > produced".

> That's why you need to prefer plastic bags to paper ones. Plastic
> bags won't rot and thus won't contribute to the CO2 buildup in the
> atmosphere.

> In fact, I have a perfect idea to counter CO2 emissions: collect it
> all, throw away the O2 molecules and compress the C into diamonds.
> Use the resulting diamond powder to pave roads.

Except to "throw away the O2 molecules" (which are not O2 molecules
when in the form of CO2 anymore) requires an input of energy equal to
that released by burning the carbon itself initially.  Overall it would
actually require more, due to conversion and efficiency losses in the
process.

So the only way to sustain a conversion of CO2 into O2 and elemental C
would be to utilize solar power as the input energy source.  Using
anything else just burns other carbon atoms into CO2 mollecules to get
the energy to convert the other CO2 mollecules back into O2 and C at
the other end.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3638

Rich <rich@example.invalid>:

> Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> In fact, I have a perfect idea to counter CO2 emissions: collect it
>> all, throw away the O2 molecules and compress the C into diamonds.
>> Use the resulting diamond powder to pave roads.
>
> Except to "throw away the O2 molecules" (which are not O2 molecules
> when in the form of CO2 anymore) requires an input of energy equal to
> that released by burning the carbon itself initially. Overall it would
> actually require more, due to conversion and efficiency losses in the
> process.
>
> So the only way to sustain a conversion of CO2 into O2 and elemental C
> would be to utilize solar power as the input energy source. Using
> anything else just burns other carbon atoms into CO2 mollecules to get
> the energy to convert the other CO2 mollecules back into O2 and C at
> the other end.

Yes. The nice thing about the conversion/compression process is that you
can do it at your leisure and anywhere on the globe. You can cover the
Sahara with solar panels and place the wind farms in any desolate, windy
place. The CO2 will come to you because of the winds and...

   the mixing ratio of CO2 is relatively constant through the atmosphere
   [...] up to very high altitudes <URL:
   https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080122160443AAOjPLQ>


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3641

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid>:

> > Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> >> In fact, I have a perfect idea to counter CO2 emissions: collect it
> >> all, throw away the O2 molecules and compress the C into diamonds.
> >> Use the resulting diamond powder to pave roads.
> >
> > Except to "throw away the O2 molecules" (which are not O2 molecules
> > when in the form of CO2 anymore) requires an input of energy equal to
> > that released by burning the carbon itself initially. Overall it would
> > actually require more, due to conversion and efficiency losses in the
> > process.
> >
> > So the only way to sustain a conversion of CO2 into O2 and elemental C
> > would be to utilize solar power as the input energy source. Using
> > anything else just burns other carbon atoms into CO2 mollecules to get
> > the energy to convert the other CO2 mollecules back into O2 and C at
> > the other end.

> Yes. The nice thing about the conversion/compression process is that you
> can do it at your leisure and anywhere on the globe. You can cover the
> Sahara with solar panels and place the wind farms in any desolate, windy
> place. The CO2 will come to you because of the winds and...

>    the mixing ratio of CO2 is relatively constant through the atmosphere
>    [...] up to very high altitudes <URL:
>    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080122160443AAOjPLQ>

This is true, and it avoids the thorny issue of those same remote
desolate locations not having any power transmission infrastructure
with with to transmit out the power that could be generated in the
location.

Feeding the generated power into CO2 capture would at least let the
power go to a reasonable use.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3643

Rich <rich@example.invalid>:

> Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> Yes. The nice thing about the conversion/compression process is that
>> you can do it at your leisure and anywhere on the globe. You can
>> cover the Sahara with solar panels and place the wind farms in any
>> desolate, windy place. The CO2 will come to you because of the winds
>> [...]
>
> This is true, and it avoids the thorny issue of those same remote
> desolate locations not having any power transmission infrastructure
> with with to transmit out the power that could be generated in the
> location.
>
> Feeding the generated power into CO2 capture would at least let the
> power go to a reasonable use.

And former wasteland might turn into a resource.

Seriously, though, it would be extremely expensive to build. Plus, even
though CO2 "will come to you", it will probably not come to your suction
points at the same rate that the world is spewing it up and your diamond
compression capacity would be no match either.

Forgetting diamonds, I understand people are trying to figure out
effective ways to process atmospheric CO2 into fuels: <URL:
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-liquid-fuel-atmospheric-co2.html>.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3654

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid>:

> > Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> >> Yes. The nice thing about the conversion/compression process is that
> >> you can do it at your leisure and anywhere on the globe. You can
> >> cover the Sahara with solar panels and place the wind farms in any
> >> desolate, windy place. The CO2 will come to you because of the winds
> >> [...]
> >
> > This is true, and it avoids the thorny issue of those same remote
> > desolate locations not having any power transmission infrastructure
> > with with to transmit out the power that could be generated in the
> > location.
> >
> > Feeding the generated power into CO2 capture would at least let the
> > power go to a reasonable use.

> And former wasteland might turn into a resource.

> Seriously, though, it would be extremely expensive to build. Plus, even
> though CO2 "will come to you", it will probably not come to your suction
> points at the same rate that the world is spewing it up and your diamond
> compression capacity would be no match either.

> Forgetting diamonds, I understand people are trying to figure out
> effective ways to process atmospheric CO2 into fuels: <URL:
> http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-liquid-fuel-atmospheric-co2.html>.

Which would probably be a better use of all that "desert solar" energy. 
Use the captured energy to drive an air -> methanol conversion
(methanol is CH4O) so assuming enough water vapor could be extracted
from the air the CO2 plus some H2O could become CH4O.  And since
methanol is liquid at STP it is significantly easier to transport. 
Then the "plant" becomes a carbon recycler.

The one problem here is gaining the four hydrogens that go into
methanol.  Desert air is usually very dry, so a key would be enough
water vapor that could be extracted (even if the air is "dry") to feed
into the conversion process.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3655

In article <lnerb5$4ga$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid>
wrote:

> Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> > Rich <rich@example.invalid>:
> 
> > > Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> > >> Yes. The nice thing about the conversion/compression process is that
> > >> you can do it at your leisure and anywhere on the globe. You can
> > >> cover the Sahara with solar panels and place the wind farms in any
> > >> desolate, windy place. The CO2 will come to you because of the winds
> > >> [...]
> > >
> > > This is true, and it avoids the thorny issue of those same remote
> > > desolate locations not having any power transmission infrastructure
> > > with with to transmit out the power that could be generated in the
> > > location.
> > >
> > > Feeding the generated power into CO2 capture would at least let the
> > > power go to a reasonable use.
> 
> > And former wasteland might turn into a resource.
> 
> > Seriously, though, it would be extremely expensive to build. Plus, even
> > though CO2 "will come to you", it will probably not come to your suction
> > points at the same rate that the world is spewing it up and your diamond
> > compression capacity would be no match either.
> 
> > Forgetting diamonds, I understand people are trying to figure out
> > effective ways to process atmospheric CO2 into fuels: <URL:
> > http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-liquid-fuel-atmospheric-co2.html>.
> 
> Which would probably be a better use of all that "desert solar" energy. 
> Use the captured energy to drive an air -> methanol conversion
> (methanol is CH4O) so assuming enough water vapor could be extracted
> from the air the CO2 plus some H2O could become CH4O.  And since
> methanol is liquid at STP it is significantly easier to transport. 
> Then the "plant" becomes a carbon recycler.
> 
> The one problem here is gaining the four hydrogens that go into
> methanol.

No, the one problem here is that many of these areas are politically
unstable. Good luck with getting anyone to build plant there.

-- 
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web