|
Post by hallmackem on Sept 20, 2007 12:06:52 GMT
Like i said there is already such a thing but as of yet no one has refined the technology enough to make it powerfull or efficient enough to be a viable option.
I belive it is Hydogen GAS that is used however (liquid Hydrogen would be far too cold to use in any form of engine)
The way it works is fairly basic, the Hydrogen merely needs a catalyst and a supply of air, when catalysed one Hydrogen molecule will bond with two Oxygen molecules. The making of these bonds gives of energy and is known as an exothermic reaction, this energy can be used to power the engine. The only physical product of this reaction is Water H2O. Now of course that may all be bullpoo but i'm fairly sure thats how it works.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael <3 on Sept 20, 2007 12:17:18 GMT
hm that's true but we can't really stop global warming that much because it's a natural thing that will happen anyway plus we've always been the main cause of it because it's happening all the time so we can't stop it. yes we can stop making the ozone layer thicker but it isn't going to stop the sun getting in and melting the ice caps and same applys for global freezing.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Sept 20, 2007 12:24:52 GMT
hm that's true but we can't really stop global warming that much because it's a natural thing that will happen anyway plus we've always been the main cause of it because it's happening all the time so we can't stop it. yes we can stop making the ozone layer thicker but it isn't going to stop the sun getting in and melting the ice caps and same applys for global freezing. What you said there makes no sense, we are not making the ozone layer thicker, the CFC gases fom aerosols and such like are actually making holes in the ozone layer. Plus like Bismarck has said we haven't always been the main cause of it because we've only been burning fossil fuels in abundance for a very short period of time but since we have been burning it we have released more into the atmosphere than the planet can deal with, why can't anyone see this? The very fact that the oil, coal and gas reserves are running out means there is more CO2 in the air than there should be. Anyway while we're all worrying about this you do realse that when the Earth's magnetic field shifts (which it's due to) we will all be drowned anyway as the magnetic north and south poles swap over allowing the sea to wash over the land.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael <3 on Sept 20, 2007 12:33:53 GMT
whatever i've forgot since y6
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Sept 20, 2007 13:01:14 GMT
whatever i've forgot since y6 Well constructed, reasoned and well informed response there.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael <3 on Sept 21, 2007 9:29:05 GMT
lol
|
|
|
Post by thefullback on Sept 21, 2007 14:57:15 GMT
Question. If we hadn't done such a great job on destroying the forests would we still be in the same position?
|
|
|
Post by Rachael <3 on Sept 21, 2007 15:20:16 GMT
that's tough but the trees take in the carbon dioxide so surely getting rid if them is making it worse
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Sept 23, 2007 13:42:26 GMT
Chopping down the rain forests MUST be one of the biggest contributors of all. Trees take in CO2 & give out Oxygen so the less there are the worse for all of us.
Concreting over gardens to park more & more cars is another thing that humans do to upset the balance of the planet & people wonder why we're getting more floods!
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Dec 4, 2007 23:32:58 GMT
Right resurecting this thread. Otto, you may remember the discussion about Hydrogen powered transport.
Well what they are using is a Hydrogen fuel cell. These produce more power than a whole street of houses with no emissions but water.
The only problem is the storage of Hydrogen, in it's gaseous form it is too volatile and dangerous. In it's liquid and solid forms it is too cold.
Anyone who solves this problem will be very rich indeed. Lets get to work everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Dec 5, 2007 0:48:27 GMT
Clarkson said something similar on Top Gear last night....Quote:"To all you kids in school watching this programme.Go back to your science labs and ask the teacher about Hydrogen fuel cells.Because whoever cracks it will be the richest man on the planet".... They then went on the say that there are some very worried men in Saudi Arabia....class
|
|
|
Post by SaintTim on Dec 5, 2007 4:00:27 GMT
Good old Mr Clarkson
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Dec 5, 2007 4:31:21 GMT
Ben,on a serious note,read this....how do they think they can get away with it?
When President Bush unveiled his plans for a hydrogen-powered car in his State of the Union address in January, he proposed $1.2 billion in spending to develop a revolutionary automobile that will be "pollution-free." The new vehicle, he declared, will rely on "a simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen" to power a car "producing only water, not exhaust fumes." Within 20 years, the president vowed, fuel-cell cars will "make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of oil."
By launching an ambitious program to develop what he calls the "Freedom Car," Bush seemed determined to realize the kind of future that hydrogen-car supporters have envisioned for years. Using existing technology, hydrogen can be easily and cleanly extracted from water. Electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines is used to split the water's hydrogen atoms from its oxygen atoms. The hydrogen is then recombined with oxygen in fuel cells, where it releases electrons that drive an electric motor in a car. What Bush didn't reveal in his nationwide address, however, is that his administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent -- and potentially as dirty -- as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year in concert with the energy industry, up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels -- in a process using energy generated by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked from water using nuclear energy.
Such a system, experts say, would effectively eliminate most of the benefits offered by hydrogen. Although the fuel-cell cars themselves may emit nothing but water vapor, the process of producing the fuel cells from hydrocarbons will continue America's dependence on fossil fuels and leave behind carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Dec 5, 2007 11:30:09 GMT
Well then it's obvious we need a way to safely store Hydrogen and cleanly create it.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Dec 5, 2007 16:53:06 GMT
Solar power for me....
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Dec 5, 2007 22:08:33 GMT
Not viable for transport surely?
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Dec 5, 2007 22:47:13 GMT
Oh sorry....a misunderstanding....to power the making of hydrogen...
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Dec 6, 2007 10:17:26 GMT
Ah, i see said the blind man.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Dec 6, 2007 12:36:38 GMT
Britain could look at windpower to convert the water to hyrogen..
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Dec 6, 2007 13:52:20 GMT
That's intersting. You come from a rural area don't you? Normally that demographic hates windfarms because they spoil natural beauty.
I don't agree with them for two reasons, the afformentioned and they don't produce very much power compared to their size.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Dec 6, 2007 14:16:48 GMT
I have read alot about it....there was this article the maintained that the new giant wind turbines under construction are the way forward.They were looking at using the Isle of Lewis,one of the windiest places in Britain, to basically covered the island.This would produce enough electricity to power Scotland....
A German company called RePower Systems is in the process of installing the world's largest wind turbines offshore in the Scottish North Sea. The turbines are rated at 5MW, and have a rotor blade diameter of 126 metres (413 feet) – the size of two soccer fields when spread out. They've been operating as a prototype at the onshore location of Brunsbüttel with an availability of over 95% since 2004.
RePower says the wind turbines (each weighing 900 metric tonnes in total) will be transported 25 kilometres on the open sea at the beginning of August, to be mounted on special jacket structures anchored underwater at a depth of 44 metres with the help of a floating crane. A premiere not just for REpower, but also for offshore wind energy in general: never before have turbines been assembled in such deep water.
REpower is participating in the "Beatrice Demonstrator Project" to test the performance of the 5 megawatt turbine on the open sea and to take a step closer to achieving its goal of making wind energy competitive. Two 5Ms are to be installed near the Beatrice oil field in Moray Firth, 25 kilometres off the Scottish East coast and at a water depth of over 40 metres. The demonstrator project is part of the EU-supported "DOWNVinD" project, Europe's largest research and development programme in the field of renewable energies with a total volume of EUR 30 million. Talisman Energy (UK) and Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) are the coordinators of the project, in which a large number of research and development organisations are participating from all over Europe. REpower is the exclusive turbine supplier.
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Dec 9, 2007 13:45:26 GMT
Ben,on a serious note,read this....how do they think they can get away with it? When President Bush unveiled his plans for a hydrogen-powered car in his State of the Union address in January, he proposed $1.2 billion in spending to develop a revolutionary automobile that will be "pollution-free." The new vehicle, he declared, will rely on "a simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen" to power a car "producing only water, not exhaust fumes." Within 20 years, the president vowed, fuel-cell cars will "make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of oil." By launching an ambitious program to develop what he calls the "Freedom Car," Bush seemed determined to realize the kind of future that hydrogen-car supporters have envisioned for years. Using existing technology, hydrogen can be easily and cleanly extracted from water. Electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines is used to split the water's hydrogen atoms from its oxygen atoms. The hydrogen is then recombined with oxygen in fuel cells, where it releases electrons that drive an electric motor in a car. What Bush didn't reveal in his nationwide address, however, is that his administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent -- and potentially as dirty -- as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year in concert with the energy industry, up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels -- in a process using energy generated by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked from water using nuclear energy. Such a system, experts say, would effectively eliminate most of the benefits offered by hydrogen. Although the fuel-cell cars themselves may emit nothing but water vapor, the process of producing the fuel cells from hydrocarbons will continue America's dependence on fossil fuels and leave behind carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming. This just confirms what I've long suspected - Bush is actually certifiably insane.
|
|
|
Post by likeasharkinafunnyhat on Dec 14, 2007 19:14:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Jan 10, 2008 18:38:44 GMT
The government have just approved the building of more nuclear plants. At last! Some sense from an incumbent government. For years France has produced 70% of it's power by nuclear fission & has not had one accident. This chart: news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456932/html/nn5page1.stm shows why all the alternatives are too far down the line to be a practical solution although H.M. Gov promise to invest in research for those as well. It's obvious that most of you disagree but I think we've already done too much damage, both by industrialisation & overpopulation, to actually save the majority of the human race. Nature has a way of getting rid of it's irritants (it's survived 5 billion years compared to our 100,000) and this time plague or even war will not be enough so famine on a huge scale is the likely answer. We are already aiding her by using much needed food to create fuel. The ultimate irony is that many scientists believe it was the last Ice Age and our reliance on fish & seafood that kick started an intelligent homo sapiens - and now we've just about fished the seas to death! Clean, efficent nuclear power could at least extend our existence for a while. Not long enough to travel to other planets but maybe enough for hydrogen cells to be developed to be efficient enough to power transport so that this crazy idea of diverting food for fuel is discarded. Maybe I am a doom merchant but I just can't believe that the weird and hugely damaging weather being experienced world wide over the past few years is just part of a climatic cycle. The Earths sea level generally, although not always, coincides with temperature - coldest = low level, warmest = highest - & it's the lowest it's been for 100 million years at the moment! Something's out of kilter wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Jan 10, 2008 18:55:56 GMT
The government have just approved the building of more nuclear plants. At last! Some sense from an incumbent government. For years France has produced 70% of it's power by nuclear fission & has not had one accident. This chart: news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456932/html/nn5page1.stm shows why all the alternatives are too far down the line to be a practical solution although H.M. Gov promise to invest in research for those as well. It's obvious that most of you disagree but I think we've already done too much damage to actually save the majority of the human race (nature has a way of getting rid of it's irritants and this time plague or even war will not be enough so famine on a huge scale caused by global heating is the only answer) but this could at least extend our existence for a while. The problems with Nuclear Power are: Danger of fallout Disposal of waste Cost (startip, running and de-commisioning) Non-renewable Cannot simply be turned on or off to cope with demand, it takes so long to start that once it's on it stays on. This means they aren't all that efficient. But all in all, they are just about the only viable option right now.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Jan 10, 2008 19:25:15 GMT
The Government has announced a new PIU review of energy strategy including nuclear strategy. But its support for renewables still seems strong - it’s even allocated £1m to tidal stream work, and seems keen on wave energy.
However this may not be welcome by all. ‘Siphoning off money that could be used to accelerate the uptake of wind power into technologies which have yet to prove themselves feasible does not appear to be a rational use of public money’. So said consultant David Milborrow and editor Lyn Harrison in the leader article in Windpower Monthly (WPM) in May, noting that ‘wave energy is enjoying a sudden renaissance in Britain, but there seems to be no detailed technical justification for why wave power is getting money instead of a renewable like small tidal barrage that has already proved itself viable’.
Clearly WPM weren’t just attacking wave in favour of wind Instead, they called for ‘hard headed’ analysis of the technical and economic pros and cons of all the options, so as to help governments decide ‘on support priorities for bringing the most commercially viable options to market’. In particular they say there is a need to decide on ‘how that support should be split between research, development, demonstration and market stimulation’.
Fair enough, but their view seems to be that the emphasis should be on the later stages of helping technologies to reach the market, whereas one would think that R&D is where governments should really focus most. Since R&D is long term, commercial outfits are less interested, and it’s relatively cheap, compared with later stages in the innovation process, so it wont break the Treasury. But Milborrow and Harrison say ‘it is not the job of governments to pick technologies for funding which they think might become winners: research and development must money must be allocated across the whole spectrum, using priorities evolved from sound technical argument’.
Well, maybe, although inevitably there are priorities - and for example wave, tidal streams and PV solar have been given very low priority until recently. And quite right too, seems to be the view expressed in the leader article, which is backed up by an article in the same issue in which Milborrow and Harrison argue that, although the resource is large, wave technology is still in its infancy and faces many problems, not least survival in the hostile marine environment. So they say it shouldn’t get R&D support! They say tidal stream technology is better, since it's based on wind turbine technology, but the resource is small. Geothermal is OK, but the resource is small in the UK. Similarly for small hydro and small tidal barrages. They add that, although solar technologies receive more R&D funding than windpower, solar thermal is in decline, while the ‘output from PV is about a half to one third of that of wind from the same capacity’. But they do put PV alongside wind as ‘the only energy source with unlimited potential’. Finally, the EU is chastised for seeing a ‘far greater role for biomass than for wind’, when in reality ‘biomass will mainly only be competitive in Europe if linked to subsidies connected with agricultural land’.
If this sounds like a pretty partisan pro-wind, anti-almost everything else, analysis, then, they would no doubt reply, that’s because wind is genuinely the best option, with only a few rivals. Well, maybe so. PV is certainly expensive and has low load factors, and the economics of biomass are still very uncertain. But wave and tidal turbines have the advantage over wind turbines since they use a medium of much higher density than air, so they can be much smaller for the same power output.
Whereas it is useful to carry out technical analysis on this sort of level, and they do raise some interesting points, underlying at least part of the WPM critique is a hostility to subsidies - a familiar editorial line in that journal. Obviously it would be better if coal and nuclear did not continue to enjoy massive subsidies in many countries, then renewables could begin to compete on a level playing field. But for the moment that’s not the situation, and, without environmental externalities being reflected in the prices paid for electricity, it is difficult for them to lift off purely by virtue of their own economic power. They need help. If, after having been heavily subsidised, on - land wind has now reached the point when it doesn’t need help, that’s fine - it can step out into the open market. The others will hopefully follow in time - including offshore wind, wave and tidal and then PV and biomass. Pushing the ladder of support away after you’ve benefitted from it is not very charitable or wise - we’ll need them all to deal with climate change.
Really it's a matter of timescales. Wind Power Monthly sometimes argues editorially that renewables will not be best served by continuing subsidies. Obviously that’s true in the longer term. But the question is surely when will they be able to stand on their own feet. That’s a particularly important issue for new technologies. Milborrow and Harrison argue that ‘there must be ‘decision points’ when R&D is stopped if the prospects for new technologies look poor’. But doesn’t the whole sad wave power saga in the UK illustrate the folly of killing off new options, on the basis of inevitably rough estimates of future costs, before they have time to show what they might be able to do?
All that said, the WPM analysis does remind us that there is a need to look critically at the claims being made by proponents of each option. In particular, it notes that some of the rhetoric surrounding ‘micropower’ is overblown and confused- a point made well by Milborrow in Renew 130, reinforcing what we said in Renew 129. Small is not always beautiful, and small turbines or fuel cells, run on fossil derived fuel, are no great shakes in environmental terms. WPM puts it like this ‘wholesale replacement of of large power stations by numerous small units will increase, rather than reduce, greenhouse gas emissions’, and ‘large combined cycle gas turbines, far dirtier than wind, generate lower emissions than fuel cells’.
Clearly it might look different if we are talking about using renewables sources for these devices, but as WPM note, there are economies of scale, and many renewables will be best operated at the larger scale. Distributed / dispersed power may play an increasingly important role, especially if it uses renewable sources. But that’s not necessarily the same thing as off-grid power - there is also a need, at least in in most places in most industrialised countries, for grid links, to deal with the imbalances between local supply and demand, and to feed in power from larger renewable sources. Quite so. But it would be a pity if all WPM end up saying was that ‘only big wind is any good’.
|
|
|
Post by thefullback on Jan 10, 2008 19:47:25 GMT
CUT IN ENERGY BILL IS NOT JUST HOT AIR
A new green heating system is to be tested in the East Riding.
Some 50 homes in Ulrome and Skipsea are being sought to have a device known as an air source heat pump fitted.
If the pilot scheme is successful, East Riding Council will look to roll it to as many as 1,000 local authority homes across in the region. The pumps, which could halve energy bills, work in a similar way to a refrigerator, but instead of cooling, the process is reversed to heat water.
The pumps, widely used on the Continent, will be used in East Riding coastal areas, as many of the locations are not linked up to the gas network.
Jane Evison, East Wolds and Coastal ward councillor, said: "We are looking at maybe putting these systems in public sector housing and we are just setting up some trials.
"But we thought it would be unfair to restrict the systems to council tenants alone and so decided to offer the scheme to private households also.
"We are very keen to promote green living and schemes such as this. We are also keen to provide cheaper fuel for those not on the natural gas network."
The scheme is a partnership between the council and not-for-profit organisation Community Energy Systems (CES).
It is funded through regional development agency Yorkshire Forward, so comes at no cost to the council or residents.
David Marsh, 74, of St Albans Close, Withernwick, had one of the pumps installed outside his council property just before Christmas.
He said: "They are far more friendly to the environment then other heating methods, and consequently cheaper.
"They are easier to use as having a coal fire was becoming problematic for me because of my age and ailments. Lugging coal about and cleaning out the ashes was quite a struggle.
"And not being on the gas network meant heating the house throughout the night was terrible, now we just adjust a thermostat and the whole house is warm."
At the moment, people in the trial area have to rely on expensive and environmentally unfriendly sources, such as coal, to heat their homes and water.
Lee Cattermole, operations director for CES, said: "We're trying to put an end to the blight of fuel poverty in this region and help those who have to use coal, oil or LPG to heat their homes.
"Right now though, our focus is on the residents of Ulrome and Skipsea and their heating issues."
Jane Mears, senior environmental health officer for East Riding Council, said: "Many people are under the misapprehension that being green is expensive, but here we have a situation where the green option is one that is going to save these residents money in the long run. We're fully behind CES and their efforts in Ulrome and Skipsea."
Every little helps
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Jan 10, 2008 20:23:37 GMT
Of course there are problems with nuclear Ben, as there are with all the solutions, but other than Chernobyl which was mainly due to shoddy workmanship & was operated in completely the opposite way to most modern reactors, fallout is not likely to be one of them. As I said France has mainly nuclear power, & has done since the 70's at least, with out one accident.
Disposal is a major problem but quite probably will be the least of our worries within 20 years - as will decommissioning. Straight comparisons of cost of start up make nuclear more than other technologies however, a new planned gas power station in Wales will cost £800m & will produce 800 MW a new nuclear reactor is estimated to cost around £1.5b but will produce 1,600 MW.
Running costs are actually far lower - because oil & gas comprises 80% of cost of production whereas uranium comprises just 10% - and is far more stable in price than oil or gas. Surprisingly, it is also re-newable to an extent because although spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive, it can be reprocessed to extract the remaining usable uranium and plutonium, a process which reduces the need to mine fresh uranium and cuts the volume of waste.
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Jan 10, 2008 20:26:08 GMT
That sounds very interesting Fullback. Do they explain exactly how they work?
|
|
|
Post by thefullback on Jan 10, 2008 20:30:52 GMT
That sounds very interesting Fullback. Do they explain exactly how they work? The answer is yes but you have to buy the bloody paper to find out ........ will go looking for a free copy ... watch this space.
|
|