At 2:32 PM 2/16/5, Jones Beene wrote:
>Horace
>
>> >> You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom
>line. Assuming conservation of energy,
>
>> >I disagree, as do the researchers of the report cited
>> >yesterday and others who are actively working on this. I
>> >hope to get around to typing in some of their findings
>later
>> >today. You are trying to pigeon-hole this into existing
>heat
>> >engine technology. It won't fit.
>
>> I'm not trying - conservation of energy fits any
>technology ALL BY ITSELF unless that technology provides
>free energy.
>
>Again, Horace, you are invoking 'conservation of energy'
>where it does not apply. Total energy content can include
>much more than *combustion* energy (chemical energy), or
>oxidation potentials, etc. Can't you see that?
Please note that *none* of the 570 kJ/kg is *chemical* energy. Yes, you
can obtain more chemical energy by burning fuel with the liquified air.
The problem is what if any *extra* energy do you get vs. expanding the
liquified air using an LNG motor and then burning the air with the fuel in
an ordinary ICE, considering the energy cost of the liquified air in the
balance.
As far as I can see, neither liquified air nor LN2 can be a significant
player in the *global* energy market because the Btu content is miniscule.
More importantly, I think it is actually possible, if focus can be
maintained, to come up with a practical means to supply *all* the world's
energy needs, reduce pollution, and reduce atmospheric CO2. This can be
accomlished using existing sized windmill technology, with some adaptations
for very high wind areas. The major problems to be solved are:
1. Optimization of windfarm design to supply power for electrolysis
occuring at or near the wind farm.
2. Cost effective methods of obtaining CO2 from a renewable resource.
3. Hydrogen pipeline transmission and distribution system design
and operation engineering and testing.
4. Engineering of large hydrogen to methanol plants.
5. Engineering with respect to methanol storage and utilization,
especially with respect to automobile conversion, large
storage facilites and transport by ship.
6. Engineering of off-distribution-system heating sytems conversion
from heating oil or propane to methanol, or to electric heat.
7. Engineering of conversion of gas devices to hydrogen or methanol.
8. Implimentation, citing, bureaucratic hurdle, and financing strategies.
Of the above, it seems to me that only number 2. might go beyond
fundamental engineering and applied research. It appears to me that only
number 2. could represent a major technical stumbling block. This is
really where practical efforts could pay off big time. Political and
bureaucratic stumbling blocks are another thing altogether.
Implementation of the above approach should be able to nicely dovetail with
existing energy supplies, provide a realistic means to obtain a future
hydrogen economy, and afford a reasonable and affordable migration path.
If you say COE doesn't apply to liquified air systems then the ball is
entirely in your court. You are off into a way different discussion. It
is up to *you* to prove your assertion either theoretically or
experimentally. You are way off the deep end there and I feel no need to
respond to that assertion because it is way beyond even the realm of
ordinary speculation. If you have faith in that notion keep on going for
it, it might pan out. Meanwhile I'll continue looking at wind power from a
more conventional viewpoint. It seems to me that great things might be
possible from wind power with only basic engineering. There is plenty of
room for new energy sources, like CF, ZPE, etc., but my interest at this
moment is the conventional. So... carry on and best of luck on your
effort.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
