Remember me
▼ Content

ARTIFICIAL LEAF - The next big thing in the fight against climate change!


ARTIFICIAL LEAF - The next big thing in the fight against climate change!12-08-2018 12:49
SAN-DIRECT
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Learn about artificial leaf and its applications in the energy generation and climate change mitigation http://iasexpress.net/artificial-leaf/
01-09-2018 00:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
SAN-DIRECT wrote:
Learn about artificial leaf and its applications in the energy generation and climate change mitigation http://iasexpress.net/artificial-leaf/


This seems to be interesting. I have to think of the consquences. The latest paper from Nocera in the 2016 Science discusses directly making liquid fuel using the artificial leaf. Unfortunately I can no longer remember my password for my membership in the AAAS and so cannot read the full paper.

Discusing what CAN be done is sort of missing the point - how much does it cost? These sorts of systems would be carbon neutral but consider: Making the fuel carbon neutral is not making the system itself carbon neutral. Nor does it suggest how long these systems can operate before requiring some sort of overhaul.
05-09-2018 11:14
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
Hope I dont sound like some whacko but I have never been a fan of technologies that harvest hydrogen from water. For many of us water feels like an abundant resource but the truth is that fresh water is very limited and for many in the world there is hardly any.

Yes, I understand that today in the 21st century many in the western hemisphere wont have true water issues. But eventually clean drinking water will become a serious problem. If we design in systems that use water for energy and become dependent on them this will only exacerbate the problem and make it more difficult for later generations.

Rather than using sources like this I much prefer investing as much as possible into solar and wind energy.

Also - every second of every day billions of neutrinos pass through our bodies. I'd encourage exploring if neutrinos could either be harvested or interacted with to produce some form of energy.
05-09-2018 16:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Gamul1 wrote:
Hope I dont sound like some whacko but I have never been a fan of technologies that harvest hydrogen from water. For many of us water feels like an abundant resource but the truth is that fresh water is very limited and for many in the world there is hardly any.

Actually, hydrogen from water need not use fresh water. It is perfectly feasible to use sea water. The problem with hydrogen extracted like this for fuel is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It takes more energy to get the hydrogen this way than you get by burning or using it in some kind of fuel cell. Why more? Because of the energy lost by conversion, transporting, and inefficiencies in creating and using it.

Another problem with hydrogen for fuel is storage vs BTU. Hydrogen has a lower BTU than most any other fuel, and it requires special high pressure tanks to store sufficient quantities of it for cars and fueling stations for them (assuming they ever became popular).
Gamul1 wrote:
Yes, I understand that today in the 21st century many in the western hemisphere wont have true water issues. But eventually clean drinking water will become a serious problem. If we design in systems that use water for energy and become dependent on them this will only exacerbate the problem and make it more difficult for later generations.

The fresh water available is not just going away. It still rains. It still snows. We still have clouds and fog. We still have morning dew. The problem with fresh water is that it is not evenly distributed across the Earth.

Some places are awash in fresh water, others are quite dry. In most cases where there are fresh water problems, it is a case of mismanagement of this resource; either by overuse or by overbuilding where there is insufficient water to begin with.

California has both problems.

Gamul1 wrote:
Rather than using sources like this I much prefer investing as much as possible into solar and wind energy.

You are free to invest in what you want. Be aware, however, that solar and wind is much more expensive to produce per watt than such sources as coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, or hydro.
Gamul1 wrote:
Also - every second of every day billions of neutrinos pass through our bodies. I'd encourage exploring if neutrinos could either be harvested or interacted with to produce some form of energy.

The trouble with this form of energy as a source is just that...interacting with the things. Without interactions, that energy is not available as a practical energy source. While we can see their effect with detectors (an interaction), the effect is extremely small and quite rare.

It is more than just energy being there. That energy must be in some kind of concentrated form to be useful as a practical source of energy that we can use. This is again due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I see no reason not to stick with fuels and energy sources that are cheap, plentiful, and already in use. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro. Let the free market decide. We already know that oil, natural gas, and hydro are renewable energy sources.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2018 17:12
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
Into the Night wrote:

Actually, hydrogen from water need not use fresh water. It is perfectly feasible to use sea water. The problem with hydrogen extracted like this for fuel is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It takes more energy to get the hydrogen this way than you get by burning or using it in some kind of fuel cell. Why more? Because of the energy lost by conversion, transporting, and inefficiencies in creating and using it.

Another problem with hydrogen for fuel is storage vs BTU. Hydrogen has a lower BTU than most any other fuel, and it requires special high pressure tanks to store sufficient quantities of it for cars and fueling stations for them (assuming they ever became popular).

The fresh water available is not just going away. It still rains. It still snows. We still have clouds and fog. We still have morning dew. The problem with fresh water is that it is not evenly distributed across the Earth.

Some places are awash in fresh water, others are quite dry. In most cases where there are fresh water problems, it is a case of mismanagement of this resource; either by overuse or by overbuilding where there is insufficient water to begin with.

California has both problems.


Yes, I was expecting this rebuttal. I was too lazy to focus on it in my initial reply so now I pay the price.
What you say is true for the most part. I'm still not a fan of even using the salt water oceans either. The ocean maintains a fairly delicate balance and given enough time of using ocean water for energy could theoretically alter balances with salinity or other impact such that it may no longer sustain sea life. I understand the time scale on it is long - many generations - but I'd rather not have humans get into a dependency with something that would might have long term consequences. Sure, we could work to maintain the salinity balance. But I still think its a bad idea to build a dependency around one of the core requirements for life as we know it.


Into the Night wrote: You are free to invest in what you want. Be aware, however, that solar and wind is much more expensive to produce per watt than such sources as coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, or hydro.


This is not as true today as it was 10 years ago. In the past 3 years this has gotten much closer to balanced and projections are that solar at least will be cheaper to produce than carbon fuel sources.

Into the Night wrote: The trouble with this form of energy as a source is just that...interacting with the things. Without interactions, that energy is not available as a practical energy source. While we can see their effect with detectors (an interaction), the effect is extremely small and quite rare.

It is more than just energy being there. That energy must be in some kind of concentrated form to be useful as a practical source of energy that we can use. This is again due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


You are again 100% correct. My two rebuttals would be: 1) I'd like to think if billions of the stuff is passing through our bodies every second, that might be considered "concentrated enough" to at least consider exploring it, and 2) Thats what scientific study is for. Science has to figure out if it is even feasible or effective and also if it can be scaled up. I just tossed out something that came to me in my limited understanding of this topic. I am the furthest thing from an expert here. It was more the concept of seeking a source that is plentiful and "renewable".

Into the Night wrote: I see no reason not to stick with fuels and energy sources that are cheap, plentiful, and already in use. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro. Let the free market decide. We already know that oil, natural gas, and hydro are renewable energy sources.


This is the only point I'll disagree with you on. Technically you are correct that oil and natural gas are renewable. But they are not renewable on the same time scale as solar and wind. They're not even renewable on the same scale as wood as it takes millions (billions?) of years to create those sources.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll even give a pass that they do not contribute to climate change. However, it has been proven that burning them contributes to making the air and water less clean. So, never mind climate change. We can be healthier in the short/long term by using cleaner sources of energy.

I'd reserve fossil fuel use to uses where current renewable are nearly useless - air plane travel, rocket fuel, etc. I think home and auto use could be fossil independent very easily which would have a huge impact cleaner air and water.
05-09-2018 17:23
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Gamul1 wrote:
Hope I dont sound like some whacko but I have never been a fan of technologies that harvest hydrogen from water. For many of us water feels like an abundant resource but the truth is that fresh water is very limited and for many in the world there is hardly any.

Actually, hydrogen from water need not use fresh water. It is perfectly feasible to use sea water. The problem with hydrogen extracted like this for fuel is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It takes more energy to get the hydrogen this way than you get by burning or using it in some kind of fuel cell. Why more? Because of the energy lost by conversion, transporting, and inefficiencies in creating and using it.

Another problem with hydrogen for fuel is storage vs BTU. Hydrogen has a lower BTU than most any other fuel, and it requires special high pressure tanks to store sufficient quantities of it for cars and fueling stations for them (assuming they ever became popular).
Gamul1 wrote:
Yes, I understand that today in the 21st century many in the western hemisphere wont have true water issues. But eventually clean drinking water will become a serious problem. If we design in systems that use water for energy and become dependent on them this will only exacerbate the problem and make it more difficult for later generations.

The fresh water available is not just going away. It still rains. It still snows. We still have clouds and fog. We still have morning dew. The problem with fresh water is that it is not evenly distributed across the Earth.

Some places are awash in fresh water, others are quite dry. In most cases where there are fresh water problems, it is a case of mismanagement of this resource; either by overuse or by overbuilding where there is insufficient water to begin with.

California has both problems.

Gamul1 wrote:
Rather than using sources like this I much prefer investing as much as possible into solar and wind energy.

You are free to invest in what you want. Be aware, however, that solar and wind is much more expensive to produce per watt than such sources as coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, or hydro.
Gamul1 wrote:
Also - every second of every day billions of neutrinos pass through our bodies. I'd encourage exploring if neutrinos could either be harvested or interacted with to produce some form of energy.

The trouble with this form of energy as a source is just that...interacting with the things. Without interactions, that energy is not available as a practical energy source. While we can see their effect with detectors (an interaction), the effect is extremely small and quite rare.

It is more than just energy being there. That energy must be in some kind of concentrated form to be useful as a practical source of energy that we can use. This is again due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I see no reason not to stick with fuels and energy sources that are cheap, plentiful, and already in use. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro. Let the free market decide. We already know that oil, natural gas, and hydro are renewable energy sources.


Yes, the second law of thermodynamics works here but the point is that it is free energy from the sun.

And yes, there is little energy in hydrogen but again - it is free energy that is useable with the present forms of combustion engines we already have.

Over the entire world, freshwater is quite a rare thing. But there is immense research into making freshwater easily available to everyone. These technologies range from condensation of sun heated water to filtration.

It is essentially impossible to generate any energy from neutrinos. They are a fermion and being electrically neutral interacts only with gravity or direct collision with a proton. Not to mention that they are only one billionth the mass of an electron. It isn't as if you could build a windmill in outer space to harvest their energy since they do not interact with normal matter. At high enough densities the chances of a neutrino interacting with a Proton to form a Neutron or Positron are high enough to be measurable. But in open space there is insufficient densities.

The "artificial leaf" is an interesting source of energy. Being almost 10 times as efficient as a plant that means that it is far more efficient than normal sources of energy which originally came from plant sources. There are still numerous problems and it is questionable if they can be overcome.
05-09-2018 17:40
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Gamul1 wrote:

Yes, I was expecting this rebuttal. I was too lazy to focus on it in my initial reply so now I pay the price.
What you say is true for the most part. I'm still not a fan of even using the salt water oceans either. The ocean maintains a fairly delicate balance and given enough time of using ocean water for energy could theoretically alter balances with salinity or other impact such that it may no longer sustain sea life. I understand the time scale on it is long - many generations - but I'd rather not have humans get into a dependency with something that would might have long term consequences. Sure, we could work to maintain the salinity balance. But I still think its a bad idea to build a dependency around one of the core requirements for life as we know it.

This is not as true today as it was 10 years ago. In the past 3 years this has gotten much closer to balanced and projections are that solar at least will be cheaper to produce than carbon fuel sources.

You are again 100% correct. My two rebuttals would be: 1) I'd like to think if billions of the stuff is passing through our bodies every second, that might be considered "concentrated enough" to at least consider exploring it, and 2) Thats what scientific study is for. Science has to figure out if it is even feasible or effective and also if it can be scaled up. I just tossed out something that came to me in my limited understanding of this topic. I am the furthest thing from an expert here. It was more the concept of seeking a source that is plentiful and "renewable".

This is the only point I'll disagree with you on. Technically you are correct that oil and natural gas are renewable. But they are not renewable on the same time scale as solar and wind. They're not even renewable on the same scale as wood as it takes millions (billions?) of years to create those sources.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll even give a pass that they do not contribute to climate change. However, it has been proven that burning them contributes to making the air and water less clean. So, never mind climate change. We can be healthier in the short/long term by using cleaner sources of energy.

I'd reserve fossil fuel use to uses where current renewable are nearly useless - air plane travel, rocket fuel, etc. I think home and auto use could be fossil independent very easily which would have a huge impact cleaner air and water.


Much as it galls me to agree with ITN, he is mostly correct. While you are totally correct that wind and solar dirty the environment less that difference turns out to be very small. If memory serves it is only something like less than 10% less than fossil fueled power plants. Hardly enough to go to the tremendous expense of their own installations.

And ITN holds the absolutely ludicrous idea that coal and gasoline and natural gas are forming within the Earth's crust without the requirements of it only occurring because of undecayed plant matter that usually only occurs on the African savanna and the Brazilian rain forest. With high enough levels of CO2 the plankton can grow in the sea fast enough that the dead plankton falling into the depths of the ocean can build up faster than decal mechanisms can occur. This buries this undecayed plankton under layers of sediment and eventually bacterial interactions can change this into oil. The time lines for this are immense but since we have a couple of billion years of it waiting to harvest it isn't as if fossil fuels are going to run out anytime soon.
05-09-2018 19:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Gamul1 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Actually, hydrogen from water need not use fresh water. It is perfectly feasible to use sea water. The problem with hydrogen extracted like this for fuel is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It takes more energy to get the hydrogen this way than you get by burning or using it in some kind of fuel cell. Why more? Because of the energy lost by conversion, transporting, and inefficiencies in creating and using it.

Another problem with hydrogen for fuel is storage vs BTU. Hydrogen has a lower BTU than most any other fuel, and it requires special high pressure tanks to store sufficient quantities of it for cars and fueling stations for them (assuming they ever became popular).

The fresh water available is not just going away. It still rains. It still snows. We still have clouds and fog. We still have morning dew. The problem with fresh water is that it is not evenly distributed across the Earth.

Some places are awash in fresh water, others are quite dry. In most cases where there are fresh water problems, it is a case of mismanagement of this resource; either by overuse or by overbuilding where there is insufficient water to begin with.

California has both problems.


Yes, I was expecting this rebuttal. I was too lazy to focus on it in my initial reply so now I pay the price.
What you say is true for the most part. I'm still not a fan of even using the salt water oceans either. The ocean maintains a fairly delicate balance and given enough time of using ocean water for energy could theoretically alter balances with salinity or other impact such that it may no longer sustain sea life.

The amount of water you are talking about is far less than what evaporates off the ocean every hour. Oceans cover 7/10th's of the Earth's surface. It has a wide range of salinity already in it (salinity of ocean water is not uniform). Sea life has no problem with it.
Gamul1 wrote:
I understand the time scale on it is long - many generations - but I'd rather not have humans get into a dependency with something that would might have long term consequences.

Rather a vague concern. What is a 'long term consequence'? What is a 'dependency'? Could you be more specific?
Gamul1 wrote:
Sure, we could work to maintain the salinity balance. But I still think its a bad idea to build a dependency around one of the core requirements for life as we know it.

No need. The ocean really is big enough to take care of itself. Salts from the land also wash into the oceans.
Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You are free to invest in what you want. Be aware, however, that solar and wind is much more expensive to produce per watt than such sources as coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, or hydro.


This is not as true today as it was 10 years ago. In the past 3 years this has gotten much closer to balanced and projections are that solar at least will be cheaper to produce than carbon fuel sources.

Solar and wind still is measured in dollars per kW, while oil, natural gas, and coal are measured in pennies. Solar and wind have a LONG way to go. Don't fall for the masking effect of the subsidies.
Gamul1 wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The trouble with this form of energy as a source is just that...interacting with the things. Without interactions, that energy is not available as a practical energy source. While we can see their effect with detectors (an interaction), the effect is extremely small and quite rare.

It is more than just energy being there. That energy must be in some kind of concentrated form to be useful as a practical source of energy that we can use. This is again due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


You are again 100% correct. My two rebuttals would be: 1) I'd like to think if billions of the stuff is passing through our bodies every second, that might be considered "concentrated enough" to at least consider exploring it, and 2) Thats what scientific study is for. Science has to figure out if it is even feasible or effective and also if it can be scaled up. I just tossed out something that came to me in my limited understanding of this topic. I am the furthest thing from an expert here. It was more the concept of seeking a source that is plentiful and "renewable".

Oil, and natural gas are plentiful and renewable. Coal is plentiful. We don't know yet about how renewable it is. Nuclear is plentiful, but is mostly restricted for political reasons. Hydro, when you can get it, is a renewable resource (as long as it rains!).

Gamul1 wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: I see no reason not to stick with fuels and energy sources that are cheap, plentiful, and already in use. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro. Let the free market decide. We already know that oil, natural gas, and hydro are renewable energy sources.


This is the only point I'll disagree with you on. Technically you are correct that oil and natural gas are renewable. But they are not renewable on the same time scale as solar and wind. They're not even renewable on the same scale as wood as it takes millions (billions?) of years to create those sources.


Actually, they are. We are actually rather awash in oil. Natural gas is even more plentiful than that. Both fuel sources are CHEAP.

Oil and natural gas form naturally. It doesn't take billions of years. It can form by direct synthesis using carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, and applying pressure and heat in the presence of an iron catalyst. Industrially, this is known as the Fischer-Tropsche process.

These are the same conditions found inside the Earth. The Earth is a natural Fischer-Tropsche reactor. That oil and natural gas can be found anywhere you want to drill for it, but is closest to the surface near the edges of tectonic plates, especially where spreading action is taking place. If you look at the major oil fields, they are generally located in these areas.

You can pump a well dry in Texas, for instance, cap it, and a few years later uncap the well and it's full of oil again. Whole fields do this. It isn't coming from a nearby field.

Oil and natural gas don't come from dinosaurs or ancient plant life, as they taught you in school. It's being produced all the time right underneath your feet.

Coal we don't know. It is mostly carbon. It does contain fossils of plants and other critters, but these fossils are impurities that don't burn. We really have no idea where coal comes from, even though there is a fair bit of speculation about it (again, usually attributed to ancient plant life or something).

Nuclear fuel can produce a LOT of energy for the amount used. After use, the fuel can be reprocessed into a different kind of reactor and used until the resulting waste is quite safe to handle.

Fusion would be great, but we just can't seem to contain what effectively is a star inside a reaction chamber.

Gamul1 wrote:
For the purpose of this discussion I'll even give a pass that they do not contribute to climate change.

Since the phrase 'climate change' doesn't mean anything, that's easy.
Gamul1 wrote:
However, it has been proven that burning them contributes to making the air and water less clean.

A stoichiometrical burn produces only carbon dioxide and water. Inefficiencies in the burn produce other gases or soot.
Gamul1 wrote:
So, never mind climate change.

Might as well. It's meaningless.
Gamul1 wrote:
We can be healthier in the short/long term by using cleaner sources of energy.

Here in the United States, we burn coal, oil, and natural gas pretty cleanly. It's places like China that put out a lot of soot. These are nationalized coal plants and run pretty inefficiently.
Gamul1 wrote:
I'd reserve fossil fuel use to uses where current renewable are nearly useless - air plane travel, rocket fuel, etc.

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Cars and aircraft generally use oil products for fuel. Rockets use either liquid hydrogen, or use a solid fuel such as ammonium perchlorate and aluminum, like the space shuttle did. Most small rockets (such as fireworks) just use black powder.
Gamul1 wrote:
I think home and auto use could be fossil independent very easily which would have a huge impact cleaner air and water.

They already are. We don't use fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2018 19:07
05-09-2018 19:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Gamul1 wrote:
Hope I dont sound like some whacko but I have never been a fan of technologies that harvest hydrogen from water. For many of us water feels like an abundant resource but the truth is that fresh water is very limited and for many in the world there is hardly any.

Actually, hydrogen from water need not use fresh water. It is perfectly feasible to use sea water. The problem with hydrogen extracted like this for fuel is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It takes more energy to get the hydrogen this way than you get by burning or using it in some kind of fuel cell. Why more? Because of the energy lost by conversion, transporting, and inefficiencies in creating and using it.

Another problem with hydrogen for fuel is storage vs BTU. Hydrogen has a lower BTU than most any other fuel, and it requires special high pressure tanks to store sufficient quantities of it for cars and fueling stations for them (assuming they ever became popular).
Gamul1 wrote:
Yes, I understand that today in the 21st century many in the western hemisphere wont have true water issues. But eventually clean drinking water will become a serious problem. If we design in systems that use water for energy and become dependent on them this will only exacerbate the problem and make it more difficult for later generations.

The fresh water available is not just going away. It still rains. It still snows. We still have clouds and fog. We still have morning dew. The problem with fresh water is that it is not evenly distributed across the Earth.

Some places are awash in fresh water, others are quite dry. In most cases where there are fresh water problems, it is a case of mismanagement of this resource; either by overuse or by overbuilding where there is insufficient water to begin with.

California has both problems.

Gamul1 wrote:
Rather than using sources like this I much prefer investing as much as possible into solar and wind energy.

You are free to invest in what you want. Be aware, however, that solar and wind is much more expensive to produce per watt than such sources as coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, or hydro.
Gamul1 wrote:
Also - every second of every day billions of neutrinos pass through our bodies. I'd encourage exploring if neutrinos could either be harvested or interacted with to produce some form of energy.

The trouble with this form of energy as a source is just that...interacting with the things. Without interactions, that energy is not available as a practical energy source. While we can see their effect with detectors (an interaction), the effect is extremely small and quite rare.

It is more than just energy being there. That energy must be in some kind of concentrated form to be useful as a practical source of energy that we can use. This is again due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I see no reason not to stick with fuels and energy sources that are cheap, plentiful, and already in use. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro. Let the free market decide. We already know that oil, natural gas, and hydro are renewable energy sources.


Yes, the second law of thermodynamics works here but the point is that it is free energy from the sun.

It is not free energy from the Sun. It cost something to build the system. It costs something to maintain it.

While you can use solar power to extract hydrogen, it would probably be more efficient to just use the solar power directly. Using it to extract hydrogen is really nothing more than ballasting for solar power, similar to using batteries or hydraulic storage systems.

Wake wrote:
And yes, there is little energy in hydrogen but again - it is free energy that is useable with the present forms of combustion engines we already have.

Again, it is just ballasting for solar power. You can also drive a car on solar power collected into batteries. We already have electric cars that are quite practical for commuter use (although expensive).
Wake wrote:
Over the entire world, freshwater is quite a rare thing. But there is immense research into making freshwater easily available to everyone. These technologies range from condensation of sun heated water to filtration.
True, but unrelated.
Wake wrote:
It is essentially impossible to generate any energy from neutrinos. They are a fermion and being electrically neutral interacts only with gravity or direct collision with a proton. Not to mention that they are only one billionth the mass of an electron. It isn't as if you could build a windmill in outer space to harvest their energy since they do not interact with normal matter. At high enough densities the chances of a neutrino interacting with a Proton to form a Neutron or Positron are high enough to be measurable. But in open space there is insufficient densities.

True.
Wake wrote:
The "artificial leaf" is an interesting source of energy. Being almost 10 times as efficient as a plant that means that it is far more efficient than normal sources of energy which originally came from plant sources. There are still numerous problems and it is questionable if they can be overcome.

We shall see. The biggest problem right now is cost and availability.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2018 23:15
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
I wish that you would stop inventing definitions for words. "Ballasting" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

The idea of it being FREE is because the very first thing is to be able to scavenge power without using ANY freshwater which you don't even appear to consider. ALL other power generators except wind and solar use freshwater supplies.

The artificial leaf at this very moment is more efficient than a solar cell and it has just started its development cycle.

I live 20 miles away from Tesla and have discussed the dangers and high expense of those "batteries" with his company. You again don't appear to know anything about it. Small lithium ion batteries in something as mundane as those "vapors" have exploded. Tesla's have exploded and/or caught on fire. Hydrogen is three orders of magnitude safer. Buses around here run on it as do some of the garbage trucks. No it isn't as efficient as diesel but it works.

Every time you start trying to show your expertise at something you do the reverse. As old as you are I suggest you grow up finally.
06-09-2018 00:08
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Into the Night wrote:
Cars and aircraft generally use oil products for fuel.


..They use petroleum products. Boilers will use DFM while something like an F-14 or F-18 (airplanes) will use aviation fuel. Oil and diesel also come from petroleum.
..With diesel engines they use glow plugs instead of spark plugs. They absorb some heat from the combustion process and then use that to help fire the next cycle. This is a mechanical example of using black body radiation.
06-09-2018 00:38
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cars and aircraft generally use oil products for fuel.


..They use petroleum products. Boilers will use DFM while something like an F-14 or F-18 (airplanes) will use aviation fuel. Oil and diesel also come from petroleum.
..With diesel engines they use glow plugs instead of spark plugs. They absorb some heat from the combustion process and then use that to help fire the next cycle. This is a mechanical example of using black body radiation.


Glow plugs are only used to start the engine. Once running they are turned off.
06-09-2018 03:22
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cars and aircraft generally use oil products for fuel.


..They use petroleum products. Boilers will use DFM while something like an F-14 or F-18 (airplanes) will use aviation fuel. Oil and diesel also come from petroleum.
..With diesel engines they use glow plugs instead of spark plugs. They absorb some heat from the combustion process and then use that to help fire the next cycle. This is a mechanical example of using black body radiation.


Glow plugs are only used to start the engine. Once running they are turned off.


...And if the cylinder walls aren't warm no combustion. Why there are glow plugs.
06-09-2018 03:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
I wish that you would stop inventing definitions for words. "Ballasting" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

Yes it does. What do YOU think it means?
Wake wrote:
The idea of it being FREE is because the very first thing is to be able to scavenge power without using ANY freshwater which you don't even appear to consider. ALL other power generators except wind and solar use freshwater supplies.

Wind and solar do too.
Wake wrote:
The artificial leaf at this very moment is more efficient than a solar cell and it has just started its development cycle.

It IS a solar cell.
Wake wrote:
I live 20 miles away from Tesla and have discussed the dangers and high expense of those "batteries" with his company.

Off on a completely unrelated subject now, eh?
Wake wrote:
You again don't appear to know anything about it. Small lithium ion batteries in something as mundane as those "vapors" have exploded. Tesla's have exploded and/or caught on fire.

True. Lithium oxide batteries do catch fire if they get shorted or overly discharged or charged. You can put it out like any class B fire though.
Wake wrote:
Hydrogen is three orders of magnitude safer. Buses around here run on it as do some of the garbage trucks.

I'm not comparing electric cars to hydrogen cars. Why are you?
Wake wrote:
No it isn't as efficient as diesel but it works.

It's more expensive than diesel, but it works.
Wake wrote:
Every time you start trying to show your expertise at something you do the reverse.

Bulverism fallacy.
Wake wrote:
As old as you are I suggest you grow up finally.

Insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2018 03:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cars and aircraft generally use oil products for fuel.


..They use petroleum products.
Petroleum products ARE oil products.
James___ wrote:
Boilers will use DFM while something like an F-14 or F-18 (airplanes) will use aviation fuel.
They use kerosene. Most light planes use gasoline. Both are oil products.
James___ wrote:
Oil and diesel also come from petroleum.
Oil does not come from petroleum. Oil IS petroleum (as far as these oil products are concerned). Diesel fuel is an oil product.
James___ wrote:
..With diesel engines they use glow plugs instead of spark plugs. They absorb some heat from the combustion process and then use that to help fire the next cycle.

WRONG. Glow plugs are shut off after the engine starts.
James___ wrote:
This is a mechanical example of using black body radiation.

WRONG. Radiance isn't mechanical.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2018 03:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cars and aircraft generally use oil products for fuel.


..They use petroleum products. Boilers will use DFM while something like an F-14 or F-18 (airplanes) will use aviation fuel. Oil and diesel also come from petroleum.
..With diesel engines they use glow plugs instead of spark plugs. They absorb some heat from the combustion process and then use that to help fire the next cycle. This is a mechanical example of using black body radiation.


Glow plugs are only used to start the engine. Once running they are turned off.


...And if the cylinder walls aren't warm no combustion. Why there are glow plugs.


WRONG. The cylinder walls do not cause ignition when the glow plugs are off. Combustion occurs because of compressed air. Glow plugs start combustion until the engine is running enough to compress its own air. They are not needed once the engine is running. See the Diesel cycle.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2018 13:15
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Into the Night wrote:

WRONG. The cylinder walls do not cause ignition when the glow plugs are off. Combustion occurs because of compressed air. Glow plugs start combustion until the engine is running enough to compress its own air. They are not needed once the engine is running. See the Diesel cycle.


...The engine needs to be warm. If the engine is warm a diesel can start with the glow plugs off. I've driven a diesel before. Obviously you haven't. Haven't you ever lives n Seattle and tried starting your diesel truck in the summer then in the winter ?
..No ?
Edited on 06-09-2018 13:32
06-09-2018 17:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

WRONG. The cylinder walls do not cause ignition when the glow plugs are off. Combustion occurs because of compressed air. Glow plugs start combustion until the engine is running enough to compress its own air. They are not needed once the engine is running. See the Diesel cycle.


...The engine needs to be warm.

No, it doesn't.
James___ wrote:
If the engine is warm a diesel can start with the glow plugs off.

Not likely.
James___ wrote:
I've driven a diesel before.

Liar.
James___ wrote:
Obviously you haven't.

I fix the damn things. I'm an aircraft mechanic, remember?
James___ wrote:
Haven't you ever lives n Seattle and tried starting your diesel truck in the summer then in the winter ?

Yup. It's about the same.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate ARTIFICIAL LEAF - The next big thing in the fight against climate change!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Can California Drive the Climate Change Fight?1206-10-2018 05:37
Nevada water chief rejects big Vegas pipeline pumping plan1421-08-2018 19:58
Big World Cup day today.407-07-2018 22:12
Artificial Photosynthesis to Save the World?411-12-2017 23:13
Leaf loss from Irma420-09-2017 20:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact