Amateur Futurists Check In Here!

POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 17:01
VIEWED: 4014
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

KWICKO

Monday, June 2, 2008 4:32 AM

The CNG topic reminds me of the R12/R134 coolant switchover. When R12 became prohibitive because of the CFCs it released into the atmosphere, the switch was made to R134 systems, which is all fine and good, but 134 isn't as effective a coolant as R12 for a given volume. As such, systems that were designed with that in mind function just fine, but if you've ever been in a car that's simply been switched over to R134 in a system designed for R12, you'll find that it never really gets cold enough. I've been in several Hondas that were switched, and in the Texas summers, it gets just cool enough that you start wondering if you'd be better off with the windows down, so you switch off the A/C and roll down the windows... for about five minutes, after which you give up and turn the A/C back on, and the cycle begins again. The system just never cools the air enough, unless it was designed with R134's limitations in mind from the start.

To put that mindset into the CNG debate, I'm wondering if an engine could be "optimized" or designed from the outset to maximize its performance and uitility based around CNG, instead of merely being converted over.

Mike

CITIZEN

Monday, June 2, 2008 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems to me that the only energy sources that make sense for the future are hydrogen and solar energy. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be used in standard internal combustion engines, fuel cells and turbine engines with zero pollution.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, but it's not the most abundant element on Earth. As you say, the best way to get Hydrogen on Earth, is to 'crack' it from water, a process which has to require more energy than the resulting hydrogen can release. Though it can also be released by Biomass (depriving algae of sulphur causes it to release Hydrogen rather than Oxygen during photosynthesis), I'm not sure of the efficiencies of that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, June 2, 2008 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

To put that mindset into the CNG debate, I'm wondering if an engine could be "optimized" or designed from the outset to maximize its performance and uitility based around CNG, instead of merely being converted over.

Mike

As I understood it ( and , mind ya, I'm a mechanic, not an engineer.) it's an inherent chemical/ atomic limitation of the fuel. The NG/air reaction just doesn't produce enough energy, compared to gasoline/air.

so if ya can settle for less performance, NG works fine. so smaller payload, or less speed, or less range, or bigger tanks that use up more space. A pickup truck used like a car, fer instance-- and, hey, how many of the ones on the street get used like that? Or a one seater with a range of 100 miles? Duh, how many SUVs get used like that every day? Or something with a *T*O*P* speed of 65 mph and marginal acceleration. Sounds like my daily surface street driving, and in fact, my commute to and from work-- 10 miles each way on surface streets, and I can do it in 25 min, vs 10 min on the freeway.

CNG also does burn cleaner, and, hey, here's an advantage we used to whisper to clients, " CNG is the same stuff you use to run your stove, so it's available everywhere, and the state hasn't figured out how to tax it as a motor fuel, so ya can rip off yer state government, save that 18+ cents a gallon tax at the pump."
You shoulda seen their eyes light up when we mantioned that...:<)

KIRKULES

Monday, June 2, 2008 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems to me that the only energy sources that make sense for the future are hydrogen and solar energy. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be used in standard internal combustion engines, fuel cells and turbine engines with zero pollution.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, but it's not the most abundant element on Earth. As you say, the best way to get Hydrogen on Earth, is to 'crack' it from water, a process which has to require more energy than the resulting hydrogen can release. Though it can also be released by Biomass (depriving algae of sulphur causes it to release Hydrogen rather than Oxygen during photosynthesis), I'm not sure of the efficiencies of that.

You are correct about the energy to make hydrogen being more that you get out. The point of using hydrogen is that in the future when solar energy is abundant and cheap, you use a cheap clean energy source to produce another clean but more expensive storable energy source. The problem with fuels like ethanol is that not only does it take more energy to produce ethanol, the fuel used to produce it is more polluting than the ethanol. It makes more sense now with the high cost of solar energy to just put any excess created back on the grid. In the future the grid may become smaller and smaller and eventually only service large businesses that are too energy intensive to produce their own energy. It may be that battery technology will make converting solar to hydrogen unnecessary, but if I had to bet, I would say batteries will never be as clean and efficient as a burnable fuel.

VETERAN

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 1:28 AM

Isn't natural gas a fossil fuel? What are the available natural gas reserves? Or are we projecting a "Bartertown" situation? I'm not sure that would work on a large scale.

Provided there are sufficient reserves of natural gas, why not revisit steam power? Especially for generating electricity at home.

RUE

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 5:42 PM

RE corn ethanol for fuel

One of the mistakes that researchers have made is to calculate the corn energy inputs AS IF the corn was being grown for food rather than fuel. Corn grown for energy could skip the multiple pesticide 'treatments' used to make corn cosmetically perfect, and skip much of the fertilizer and irrigation. I've written to several researchers about this error in their assumptions.

Another source for corn is 'waste corn' - corn that can't be sold as human or animal food due to disease, contamination or other off-spec characteristic. In this case while the corn/fuel transformation wouldn't be energetically efficient, it would be more efficient that simply dumping the corn.

Still, even given all that, breaking down cellulose into sugar so it can be fermented into ethanol is the obvious way to go. That way the wood chip waste from the timber industry, corn stalks and leaves, wheat stalks etc could be converted to ethanol for fuel. There are a few researchers doing work on this who've made excellent gains - what they now need to do is to go on to a demonstration project, But given Herr Bush's lack of funding for these things the projects are in limbo.

But that is all for the future.

There are two major uses for petroleum as fuel - electricity generating and transport. Electricity can be easily generated a variety of ways - solar, wind and tides for example. And transport could be MUCH more efficient - the IC engine is a dinosaur that needs to go away.

As has been shown time and time again, the technology exists TODAY to go off of fossil fuels. 'How' isn’t even an issue.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

VETERAN

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 12:57 AM

I bet they could expand this type of ethanol generation to include other forms of "biomass" including most forms of garbage and at the very least yard waste.

As far as generating electricity it's mostly King coal followed by nuclear and then natural gas. Oil is a distant fifth (behind hydropower) at just 3%. So it's not unrealistic to think that we could eliminate the use of oil for production of electricity.

RUE

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:23 AM

Ah - That's right. Coal does generate most of the electricity in the US.

But the idea does remain the same - every fossil fuel we use now - as fuel - coal, oil, gas - can be replaced with something else just with current technology. People say we need a 'Manhattan Project' for energy. But the only thing between here and there, now and an energy independence - is investment. About a trillion dollars worth, or 1/3 the total cost of the Iraq War.

Ahhhh - what we could have gotten for a fraction of the cost of the Iraq War. Instead, we got baby Bush's money pit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008
030702846.html
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 2:12 PM

Quote:

Provided there are sufficient reserves of natural gas, why not revisit steam power? Especially for generating electricity at home.

Why would you use Natural Gas for steam power?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 2:16 PM

Saving energy would be a good first move. If you built better insulated houses using low energy lighting and appliances and gave each a thermopile that would be a good start. A thermopile is a type of geothermal unit. You bury it 300FT under your garden and in the summer you use if as a heat sync pumping the heat from your house into it. Since the ground remains relatively cool compared to the air this makes your AC vastly more efficient. In winter you use a heat exchanger to warm the house from the pile because at that point the ground is significantly warmer than the air. Add in solar water heating to help make up the shortfall and most of your heating needs can be met without burning fuel at all.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE