Dear Vo,
Pre suppose one intends to burn H and O ... and use some of the
atmosphere as well....
(A) The exhaust can be passed through calcium hydroxide in an
aqueous solution..... then we have trapped the gaseous to use on the
crops... or our own garden.
(B) Nitrogen - oxygen gases can also be trapped to use for crops.
Hmmm...........
As an exercise:
Permit ALL Vos to think of a method or methods whereby our know how
and theory and hands on can be used to "be part of an energy chain"
....
The Task?
To show positive thinking as opposed to " cannot help, cannot
work, cannot be had" ...and ...
Ask ourselves to look toward ALL we know or can search out to
suggest what can be a benefit...
It seems to this partial lurker "bitching" and "can NOT" is
easier to do ... or post.... than the NOT ....
Uh......
Gee folks, .... how about a NEW game?
A NEW idea or endeavor .... bet it will be more funnn...
but it MAY to too hard for some to embrace ....
Suggestion:
From this DAY ONE: ( you pick it, as I do not know what side of
the date line you are on)
Try to suggest, point out or convey what DOES, HAS or COULD work
to help.....
Uhhhhh
This is a challenge.....
I fully believe some parties CANNOT or... worse WILL not contribute........
how some Ever... you are permitted to ask others how to try...
and maybe even change a way of bandwidth use .........
Opinion......
---------
NB This post, above, conveys no onus to any earlier post of any type....
sort of tossing out a new chip on the table
On 6/29/06, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> First off, I must say I hate the term "alternative energy." Why?
> Alternative has a sort of 'its not the greatest but its something to
> fall back on' kind of attachment to it. I think this stuff is more
> like "advanced" energy, but thats just my $0.75 (inflation, no longer
> $0.02)
>
> I've heard of the possibilities of running engines on compressed or
> liquefied methane gas. Quite powerful, low pollution, much easier on
> the inner works of the engine, valves in particular. I have also read
> Zubrin's books on exploration schemes for Mars, in particular the
> bits about in-situ fuel generation, that is, making methane with
> resources available on the Martian surface.
>
> Now my only problem with this, and why I prefer hydrogen over this,
> is you still get CO2 from burning the methane. Supposedly there is
> too much CO2 in the air. Well.... can't we just manufacture CH4 fuel
> from H2O we get from seawater (or whatever logical source) and CO2
> from the atmosphere? Granted the atmosphere of Mars is primarily CO2,
> but it is also at a far far lower pressure. I would think there is
> plenty of CO2 available in our atmosphere to be used to produce
> automotive fuel (or gas for heating homes, cooking, etc.)
But, is there an efficient mechanism which can be used to push the reaction
2*H2O + CO2 <-> CH4 + 2*O2
backwards up the energy hill?
Plants do something like this, of course, but they end up with sugar
rather than methane. I haven't heard of an industrial process which
does it (aside from the industrial process called "farming").
If this were practical it might be a sensible alternative to Jones's
notion of making liquid air using floating windmills. Surely the energy
density of LNG is higher than LAIR. For an application like that, of
course, you'd most likely rather make propane or butane rather than
methane, since either one liquifies a lot more easily than methane ...
but I kind of suspect that all three are difficult to make just using
air, water, and electricity.
> We would
> then not be adding any CO2 back to the air, simply recycling what we
> have already there. The energy to do this could be obtained by wind
> farms or solar collectors.
>
> As for the problem of transmitting all the energy from distant
> facilities to consumers not near the power plants, why can we not use
> the energy to make some high energy liquid or gas (CH4, LH2, etc.)
> and literally pipeline our energy to distant points, at no loss?
> Except of course whatever is involved in conversion/reconversion and
> moving it from A to B.
>
> Is there actually enough useable (as in, we can actually really
> harness it) wind around the US to power all this? Solar?
Last I heard the offshore wind available around the US was enormous.
Kansas would be too far from the ocean to profit from it, of course, but
I hear rumors of some fairly reliable breezes out there in flatland, too
(tornadoes aside).
>
> --Kyle
>
