Replacing fossil fuels

[autogyro]

I understand what you are saying Chris and I agree with your view on practical methods leading towards better safety and less accidents. I am sure your motives are sensible.
However, it is not you personaly who manipulate the values used to decide the level of these safety checks and measures.
Unfortunately it is still those who's main motivation is commercial profit.
There is sufficient wealth in this world today for every person living on the planet to have a good standard of living. Surely it is time for governments to drop this self destructive 'Americn Dream' idea for personal financial greed and to start replacing it with values that work with balancing nature and the human living environment as the primary incentive.

[sknguy]

How is it blase to state that you can design and plan against something you can forsee going wrong, but not for something you can't forsee (by definition you can't)?

I'm also of the opinion that the same problem should never occur twice, once you know about it you can figure out how to prevent it.

Yes... I likely jumped the gun. I do understand you perspective though. I'd actually advocate stronger safeguards... there are things we could learn as well from the monitoring of redundancies and safeguards. I'd probably prefer learning from what is too much, than from what we determine should be sufficient. But I understand your point about accidents and learning from them.

This is just a couple of my pet peeves in terms of both design philosophies... and those who take ideas and run "cheaply" with them.

[autogyro]

Microsofts Answer to Global Warming

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/ecomo ... 96.article

Previous development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer_TS3

http://www.sa.hillman.org.au/TS3.htm

Commer were forced out of business of course, bought out by Chrysler.
I believe the Commer powered three wheeled tractor unit used by British Railways did around 50 mpg but that was when there was economic and efficient rail transport.

Discus?

[Edis]

I saw a while ago that hydrogen is already being used in the US and is doing quite nicely. Electric is a pipe dream. Electric cars have poor range and take far too long to charge. The there is the increased demand for electric, much of which is generated from coal or diesel fired power stations. Hydrogen is one of the most common substances around and refining it into a usable form for automotive technology is no harder than refining petrol. The only thing that comes out the exhaust in water so it is a win win situation. The hippys will love it as well as those of us who don't believe in global warming being caused by cars.

Did we sleep during physics class?

Hydrogen is not a primary energy source, it is simply used as an energy carrier. There is no 'free' hydrogen availbile and refining it into a usable form would be nothing like oil.

Hydrogen have to be produced from for instance water taking the energy from a primary energy source such as solar, geothermal, uranium/thorium, biomass, coal, natural gas or oil. Currently, the only realistic method to produce it in larger quantities would be from fossil fuels; coal, natural gas or oil and that will in most cases be uneccesary, it would basically be simpler to use the fossil fuels directly and save the conversion losses.

Add to your list, capping engine size at say 2 ltrs. No one needs an engine bigger than that for everyday use. Also, set minimum miles per gallon targets at something like 30 - 35 miles per gallon.

Big engines are nice but man to the drink heavily!

That would be counterproductive. It is better to follow the current legislation with corporate average fuel consumption/CO2 emissions limits.

You could something similar with fuels. Say that an oil company is selling X TWh worth of transport fuels, then say 5% of that have to be reneawable. If they fail to comply they will be fined, and over time, the renewable component will increase. There could also be restrictions on the use of foodstuffs as the renewable source.

Biomass gasification can be used to convert theoretically any biomass into synthesis gas, and from there several possebilities exist. It is possible to directly produce methanol, which can be used as a fuel or a fuel component. Methanol can also be converted to DME, a diesel fuel, or gasoline using ExxonMobils Methanol To Gasoline (MTG) process which can be directly blended into gasoline at any proportion. Synthesis gas can also be converted to Fischer-Tropsch wax, which can be used as a raw material for a refinery similar to crude oil.

There are also a few ways to modify vegetable and animal fats to diesel grade hydrocarbons, which do not have the quality issues like fatty methyl esters and raw vegetable oils.

The conversion efficiency of biomass to diesel fuel using Fischer Tropsch is roughly 50% + waste heat suitable for central heating.

Of course, neither is currently capable to replace oil, but it would be a big improvement over first generation biofuels such as ethanol and fatty methyl esters.

I'm sorry, I can't really follow here WB, concrete now, which BMW Gasoline-TC models can I buy at the moment if I wanted one?

What a TC does is packing more oxygene-molecules into the engine, helping it burn as much fuel as a larger atmo-engine, where the obvious gain would be less internal friction and less fuel consumption in the lower part of the power-band, but other than that I can't really see the efficiency advantages if you really use the power available, like in a racing engine?

Besides, the TC is not running for free, it will create a back-pressure on the xhausts comparable to the boost, depending on turbine sizes.

Turbocharging will solve the main issue with current car engines; the fact that they are oversized for their application. When we build a car we have to chose an engine that is strong enough to provide an acceptable acceleration. This introduces the problem that to provide an acceptable acceleration, the engine will be forced to operate at a very low load during most of the driving cycle. The average bmep ends up just being around one-two bar and at such a low load the efficiency of the engine will be really low since we spend about as much power turning the engine around as powering the car.

With turbocharging we can install a much smaller engine in the same car, increasing the average bmep, and still being able to produce the peak power required for acceleration. The result isn't improved peak efficiency, but a much improved engine efficiency over the driving cycle.

A turbocharger turbine is powered by what is sometimes called 'blowdown energy'. That is, when the exhaust valves opens late on the expansion stroke, the pressure inside the cylinder is still high enough that the exhaust gas will flow out by itself at a high velocity. The turbocharger turbine mainly takes its energy from this blowdown phase, and that the turbine adds a restriction won't have much of an impact on the engine. The turbocharger system is generally designed to take advantage of the pressure rise in the exhaust manifold that occur during blowdown, and then during the exhaust stroke the manifold pressure will sink rapidly, adding little pumping losses during the exhaust stroke. Ideally, the pressure would be atmospheric during the exhaust stroke although that isn't really realistic, the pressure can however be substancially lower then the inlet manifold pressure supplied by the compressor.

isn't most of the energy thrown out the back in the form of thrust? how efficient would it be in translating that through a turbine and into an electrical generator?

Jet engines are designed to operate moreso at high altitudes with tremendous volumetric flow, can they be efficiently used in a land vehicle operation... the only example that comes to mind is the M1 abrams... are there others?

Volvo built a few serial hybrids powered by gas turbine engines. The peak efficiency of the turbo alternator (fuel to electricity) was in that case just slightly below 30%. As they also were rather large due to the recuperator used to improve the efficiency of the engine, and were very expensive their only significant advantage was their cleaner exhaust.

A recuperator uses exhaust gas downstream the turbine to preheat the compressed air before the combustor.

The Abrams is by far the best suited tank to its environment. yes it drinks fuel but it is much faster and has a higher payload than any other tank.

To put a gas turbine in a main battle tank is a pretty dumb idea. What you gain in weight you will lose in fuel consumption, and you end up with a huge fuel distribution problem.

The large amount of hot air expelled by the engine is an easy target for a heat seeking missile. If the Leopard 2 detects that it is fired upon it can shut down it's cooling fans for a short period of time.

That's becuase it's not meant to be. It's designed to be a MBT, not to get you to the shops using the lest amount of petrol. The reason why they used a gas turbine was because it can run on pretty much anything. Petrol, Diesel, Kerosene, chip pan fat, you name it the turbine will combust it.

(The main idea was to save money by only using aviation fuel that they could steal from the planes).


And frankly it's interesting that you chose a wankel, which has to be one of the most dreadful engines to use in terms of efficiency due to completely shitty sealing. Power density, yes. Efficiency, no.

Why did you chose a wankel for 'efficiency'?

In war you really only have two fuels availible to you: jet fuel and diesel. Military diesel engines are capable to run on both, with jet fuel often used as a the standard fuel.

[autogyro]

In modern 'war' there is no place for American over kill like the Abrams.
Yes it can dominate a battle field against a conventional cold war based enemy.
When it comes to consolidating a victory as in Iraq and Afghanisatan it is simply an expensive fuel hungry weight around the neck of the allied forces.
Its only use to blow million dollar holes in the desert sand like most of the hugely expensive modern kit used in theatre. It makes loadsa money for the arms industry however and of course the banks who just screwed all of us.
There are much better ways to fight wars against terrorism.

I chose the Wankel engine for efficiency because IMO it is ideal to match with electric traction for hybrid use, so long as its fuel efficiency and exhaust pollution levels are dealt with. It has few moving parts is simple to build with very few parts, is fairly high reving which suits electric motors/generators and is extreemly small and light. It has also proved reliable in use.

[autogyro]

I believe the Japanese earthquake and the effects of tsunami on nuclear reactors should have a direct bearing on any conclusions to the safety of nuclear power.

Those who have supported nuclear should now pay for the clean up.

[andrew]

I think rather than a knee jerk reaction, a sensible approach of suiting the energy generation process to the location would be better.

Clearly having a nuclear reactor in an earthquake zone is a danger, however the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant is 40 years old and newer plants would be built to higher standards which will incorporate the lessons learned from previous mistakes.

Looking at the facts, the plant has suffered an explosion through human error or through the inherent dangers of nucler power, but through an earthquake, which can not be predicted.

Nuclear power is perfectly safe as long as it is managed and regulated correctly.

[autogyro]

Same old response.
Ehh lets be certain of one thing first. This disaster with a nuclear reactor has happened and is happening now, after many nuclear supporters told everyone that these actual reactors had sufficient safety built in.
It was a LIE, pure and simple and those who said otherwise should be dealt with.

It will be exactly the same when there is major flooding anywhere in the world where sea level rise and atmospheric changes reach a point that triggers these inevitable disasters. If there are reactors effected the same thing or worse can happen.

I understand the need for atomic power to meet demand at present.
I also believe that massive and rapid investment should be put into alternatives so that these massively dangerous filthy nuclear plants can eventualy be decommisioned. They should not be a source of wealth for corrupt government and share holders. Such people should be made to pay for the results of disasters, at least from money out of their pockets. Start with all the NIMBYs. government leeches and anti alternate energy freaks.

Ask anyone within 12 Km from this exploding reactor about knee jerk reactions, try to patronise them andrew.

[andrew]

I'm not patronising anyone - I'm being rational.

The plant has not failed through it's day to day running. On any normal day the plant is extremely safe. An earthquake cannot be predicted and protecting against earthquakes is nigh on impossible, especially one of this magnitude.

If you were using Chernobyl as an example then fine but to use Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant as an example is incorrect as it has been damaged by a natural disaster, not an act by a person or persons.

[autogyro]

I'm not patronising anyone - I'm being rational.

The plant has not failed through it's day to day running. On any normal day the plant is extremely safe. An earthquake cannot be predicted and protecting against earthquakes is nigh on impossible, especially one of this magnitude.

If you were using Chernobyl as an example then fine but to use Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant as an example is incorrect as it has been damaged by a natural disaster, not an act by a person or persons.

I cannot understand your logic here andrew.
What does it matter if the disaster was triggered by the natural environment or by human action?
Your post seems to be a very weak excuse for the obvious risk of running nuclear reactors.
The truth is that ALL nuclear power is potentialy very very dangerous.

[Pup]

Those who have supported nuclear should now pay for the clean up.

If this remains a level 4 accident, I don't think there is any cleanup other than at the facility itself.

This is a highly publicized accident; but it doesn't look like it will be a major one - relatively speaking, on the level of a Chernoble or the like.

Don't get me wrong - I don't care a lick for these old water-cooled plants. But I'd have no problem whatsoever with having them replaced with truly modern plants. You can even put one in my back yard if you like.

[autogyro]

If it remains a level 4.
Exactly, do you know if it will pup?
It might, does that justify your argument?
What do you call a major disaster pup, because this was in NO way an accident.
Pays to get the basic fact right first.

Same old nuclear supporters argument. I will have one in my back yard, knowing full well that this is unlikely to ever happen.
Typical smoke and mirror argument with no substance.

In anycase, what you would have no problem with is hardly a reason for nuclear support is it. Hitler supported the Holocaust, does that mean everyone should?

[andrew]

autogyro - don't live life on the what ifs. Stick to certainty and fact.

Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant has not failed due to day to day running, there is a force majeure, i.e. one massive earthquake.

Modern nuclear power plants are as safe as houses.

The truth is that ALL nuclear power is potentialy very very dangerous.

And there is the key word - "potntially". Pretty much covers every single human activity possible.

What do you call a major disaster pup, because this was in NO way an accident.
Pays to get the basic fact right first.

So are you saying that a natural disaster like an earthquake is not an accident? How do you figure that this was no accident? Are you suggesting sabotage designed to coincide with an earthquake?

[Pup]

If it remains a level 4.
Exactly, do you know if it will pup?
It might, does that justify your argument?
What do you call a major disaster pup, because this was in NO way an accident.
Pays to get the basic fact right first.

Same old nuclear supporters argument. I will have one in my back yard, knowing full well that this is unlikely to ever happen.
Typical smoke and mirror argument with no substance.

In anycase, what you would have no problem with is hardly a reason for nuclear support is it. Hitler supported the Holocaust, does that mean everyone should?

Jeez, man - you want to go Hitler already? I barely know you.

Fortunately, I don't have to put myself on the line with what to call this - the IAEA gets to do that. Level 4, it is: Accident with Local Consequences.

As for safety, read up on modern reactors I think you'll be surprised. There's a reason that Greenpeace supports nuclear energy these days. For perspective, consider that there are over 5,000 coal-mining deaths alone every year.

And yes, I would like one in my backyard - but they're a bit big right now, and the cost is prohibitive.

There are two extreme viewpoints to this situation - the opposite to yours is to say that after the worst earthquake in history, they only suffered a moderate accident in one reactor in one of 53 nuclear plants. The head of TEPCO might be wearing a t-shirt next week that says "I mismanaged 53 nuclear power plants for 45 years in the most seismically active country in the world, and all I got was a lousy Level 4 accident."

I don't subscribe to either extreme myself.

[autogyro]

It is pointless agueing with someone who will not accept the FACT that nuclear reactors are 'potentialy' very very dangerous.

The way in which the earth works is NO accident.
Such things cannot and should not be used when defining these reactor levels of accident. They are based soley on human guess work as to future possible combinations of human error. These levels obviously mean nothing whatsoever in real terms in the natural world.

The earthquake was not the biggest in history not even human history let alone geological. Your facts are so far off to be laughable pup.

It does not matter how 'safe' modern reactors are in human terms, they are still potentialy very very dangerous. All the disasters using nuclear have happened even though we were told that they would not happen. Like many other people I am sick of the lies and arrogant complacency of those who wish to be lulled into a false sense of wealth and comfort by the liars that decide our energy policies.

We stopped Hitler from going nuclear, a very sensible move.
Now let us stop the current criminals from destroying the future for our children.