RE: carbon nuetral gasoline!

RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 4:45:56 PM)
Oh yes. 8000 liters of water to make one liter of gasoline. And you think this would be a "small" installation on a carrier. The ocean is pretty big so there is probably more than enough water to do what the navy wants. Sure. Once you start with a nuclear reactor (cost 1 billion dollars) you can make tiny quantities of fuel at rates that are 2-3 times more expensive than current methods. Isn't the reactor part of the aircraft carrier and thus already paid for? That has zero to do with using renewables to make hydrocarbon fuel. And if you want to use nuclear power - why not just use it to power homes directly - with zero emissions, eh? Because we are discussing making diesel fuel out of sea water to fuel aircraft on aircraft carriers. As for nuclear having zero emisions I think there is some disagreement about that. The fact that it might be interesting to the navy is because they don't have to transport the fuel to combat locations, don't have to provide security for tanker convoys. Don't have to worry about fuel as a restricting factor in time on station. Sadly, for the rest of us, cost actually matters. Three to six dollars per gallon for diesel fuel is pretty much in line with todays cost.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 4:51:32 PM)
I say that everyone who disagrees should come in, copy and paste everyone's previous comments, post in between each and every paragraph with EVERY FUCKING CONCEIVABLE POINT AGAINST THE PREVIOUS POSTER AND....bold face, raise the font size and colorize the living FUCK out of it....just get it outa your fucking system. (That's what I think). (I could be wrong).

thompsonx -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 4:55:36 PM)
Completely agree. But since the paper says its using a modified fischer Tropsch process - it helps if you know what those are doesn't it? It helps if one knows what the modifications to the fischer tropsch process are otherwise not so much. And since the picture is of reverse osmosis rig, with an electron scrubber - the pretty much explains my comments about the Sabatier process. Not at all, it explanes your opinions and nothing more. And anyone that understands those things is therefor in a better position to understand the likely impact of the patent, now isn't he? Since you clearly do not know what sort of modification to the f/t process have been created you are not in a position to make those assumptions. If your implication is that you are the only one who understands these things then that would be a rather arrogant assumption.

Yachtie -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 4:56:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Yeah, you won't put this on a carrier. The water volumes and fuel storage requirements will require something like a flo/flo ship, or something like a current oiler. And of course it will have to be nuclear powered. Not to mention it doesn't fit the mission of the carrier. This is one time, amazingly so, I find agreement with DK. There are possibilities.

thompsonx -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 4:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I say that everyone who disagrees should come in, copy and paste everyone's previous comments, post in between each and every paragraph with EVERY FUCKING CONCEIVABLE POINT AGAINST THE PREVIOUS POSTER AND....bold face, raise the font size and colorize the living FUCK out of it....just get it outa your fucking system. (That's what I think). (I could be wrong). Perhaps a chill pill is in order?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 5:11:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really! And the US government owns the patent. http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept This is a problem?

Tkman117 -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 5:19:49 PM)
It's a good thing for the USA, not a problem, I can see how his OP could be taken that way though

MissShey -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 5:33:26 PM)
What's this "excess power" that a reactor generates? Surely, it can only produce a finite amount of energy before it needs to be decommissioned, so by using "excess power" (or, more accurately, "more power than you would otherwise be using") you're just shortening the working life of the fuel rods? Anyone with any sense can see this is going to be a losing equation.

MercTech -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 6:24:04 PM)
It looks like a really novel PR spin on an improved CO2 scrubber for submarines. The older ones used some really toxic chemicals in the median steps. And, a good side effect for generating a fraction of the fuel needed for an emergency diesel. But you still have to get rid of that pesky, flammable, hydrogen. Misnomer in the title as "jet fuel" is not gasoline but diesel. (JP5 jet fuel is the same as the stuff at the diesel pump but with more of the parrafins and sulfur taken out. You can run your big rig on jet fuel but jet turbines foul on truck diesel) Biodiesel is still cheaper and easier to make and very carbon neutral.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 6:40:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I say that everyone who disagrees should come in, copy and paste everyone's previous comments, post in between each and every paragraph with EVERY FUCKING CONCEIVABLE POINT AGAINST THE PREVIOUS POSTER AND....bold face, raise the font size and colorize the living FUCK out of it....just get it outa your fucking system. (That's what I think). (I could be wrong). Perhaps a chill pill is in order? (I'm fairly confident that was the essence of my post).

LookieNoNookie -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 6:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 It's a good thing for the USA, not a problem, I can see how his OP could be taken that way though As per his typical post, behavior patterns and standard reference points, I can as well.

DomKen -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 7:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissShey What's this "excess power" that a reactor generates? Surely, it can only produce a finite amount of energy before it needs to be decommissioned, so by using "excess power" (or, more accurately, "more power than you would otherwise be using") you're just shortening the working life of the fuel rods? Anyone with any sense can see this is going to be a losing equation. Reactor cores have a life span that only varies a little whether it is run at 20% or at 80%. So run it at 80% all the time and desalinate water, which they already do, and make jet fuel which cuts down, at least a little, on how much has to be delivered by tanker.

Phydeaux -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 8:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MissShey What's this "excess power" that a reactor generates? Surely, it can only produce a finite amount of energy before it needs to be decommissioned, so by using "excess power" (or, more accurately, "more power than you would otherwise be using") you're just shortening the working life of the fuel rods? Anyone with any sense can see this is going to be a losing equation. Reactor cores have a life span that only varies a little whether it is run at 20% or at 80%. So run it at 80% all the time and desalinate water, which they already do, and make jet fuel which cuts down, at least a little, on how much has to be delivered by tanker. At the cost of mission space. This is, imo way more likely to be put on a role specific ship

njlauren -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 8:47:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech It looks like a really novel PR spin on an improved CO2 scrubber for submarines. The older ones used some really toxic chemicals in the median steps. And, a good side effect for generating a fraction of the fuel needed for an emergency diesel. But you still have to get rid of that pesky, flammable, hydrogen. Misnomer in the title as "jet fuel" is not gasoline but diesel. (JP5 jet fuel is the same as the stuff at the diesel pump but with more of the parrafins and sulfur taken out. You can run your big rig on jet fuel but jet turbines foul on truck diesel) Biodiesel is still cheaper and easier to make and very carbon neutral. Jet fuel is not diesel fuel, JP5 is basically Kerosene. If I remember my fractal distillation process, it is higher up the food chain from Diesel fuel/heating oil, it is above oil but below gasoline. Diesel oil would burn too slow to be used in a jet engine I would hazard a guess.

njlauren -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 8:53:39 PM)
I wouldn't bet on this process, it is similar in some ways to how the Germans created synthetic gasoline from coal during WWII, if I recall correctly, and it isn't particularly efficient. I would be more on synthesizing gasoline and oil from genetically modified algae, it has been done in the lab. Photosynthesis could be altered to create gasoline or oil or you could modify bacteria that would 'eat' waste and turn it into oil or gas. Craig Vettner is working on it (not sure of the spelling of his name) and I wouldn't bet against him, working with VC money he and a small team broke the human genome before the Human Genome Project did it. This would be a true carbon neutral fuel, and likewise would also likely not take a great deal of energy to process the output.In theory, it could produce an unlimited amount of gas or oil, and would be carbon neutral. Still pollutes, though, but that is relatively minimal as long as what is burning it is set up right.

Phydeaux -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/8/2014 10:11:39 PM)
They've already gotten alcohol production from gene spliced algae. But talk about ......implications. I am actually in favor of renewables - but not at the expense of genesplicing. Bacteria, and many many single celled organizes (not to mention bacteriophage) are quite adept at swapping genes. This scares the hell out of me.

DomKen -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/9/2014 2:55:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech It looks like a really novel PR spin on an improved CO2 scrubber for submarines. The older ones used some really toxic chemicals in the median steps. And, a good side effect for generating a fraction of the fuel needed for an emergency diesel. But you still have to get rid of that pesky, flammable, hydrogen. Misnomer in the title as "jet fuel" is not gasoline but diesel. (JP5 jet fuel is the same as the stuff at the diesel pump but with more of the parrafins and sulfur taken out. You can run your big rig on jet fuel but jet turbines foul on truck diesel) Biodiesel is still cheaper and easier to make and very carbon neutral. Jet fuel is not diesel fuel, JP5 is basically Kerosene. If I remember my fractal distillation process, it is higher up the food chain from Diesel fuel/heating oil, it is above oil but below gasoline. Diesel oil would burn too slow to be used in a jet engine I would hazard a guess. According to the article, they can manipulate the process to get pretty much any length of hydrocarbon chain they want. It appears they start out with ethylene and, since they were able to fuel the model airplane, they can certainly make a liquid heavy with octane. Which is really all that matters.

DomKen -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/9/2014 3:01:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren I wouldn't bet on this process, it is similar in some ways to how the Germans created synthetic gasoline from coal during WWII, if I recall correctly, and it isn't particularly efficient. I would be more on synthesizing gasoline and oil from genetically modified algae, it has been done in the lab. Photosynthesis could be altered to create gasoline or oil or you could modify bacteria that would 'eat' waste and turn it into oil or gas. Craig Vettner is working on it (not sure of the spelling of his name) and I wouldn't bet against him, working with VC money he and a small team broke the human genome before the Human Genome Project did it. This would be a true carbon neutral fuel, and likewise would also likely not take a great deal of energy to process the output.In theory, it could produce an unlimited amount of gas or oil, and would be carbon neutral. Still pollutes, though, but that is relatively minimal as long as what is burning it is set up right. My brother worked on one of those projects. The bacteria mutate a lot. It was hard to keep the colonies in the sweet spot for energy production. Gasoline is effectively a waste product and is still toxic to the bacteria so they adapt to produce less or produce a different waste material. Someone else may still lick the problem but the company my brother worked for gave up.

DomKen -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/9/2014 3:02:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux They've already gotten alcohol production from gene spliced algae. That strikes me as pointless. Yeast make alcohol just fine. Why much around with trying to get algae to do it?

Phydeaux -> RE: carbon nuetral gasoline! (4/9/2014 9:05:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux They've already gotten alcohol production from gene spliced algae. That strikes me as pointless. Yeast make alcohol just fine. Why much around with trying to get algae to do it? Fundamentally, the difference between an alkane and an alcohol is an OH group. Alcohols are ready precursers via a dehydrogenation reaction to create n length hydrocarbons. They probably were splicing yeast dna. As for why, there are a variety of factors. Food source. Medium. Tolerance to conditions. Yield. Don't know. either way.. I'm completely against GMO foods, food stocks, gene spliced micro-organims. The downside of organism that can escape, and rapidly replicate is just too huge - and I don't trust even the most brilliant of scientists to be able to figure out all the possible repercussions. About the only place I'd say I"m ok with it (some?) is in humans...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02