And here are some more that are not favorites but still entertaining, either back then or now.
Older:
1. Square by Pulse video, video
2. Tribes by Pulse video, video
3. Sunflower by Pulse video
4. Horizontal Cool by CNCD video
5. Doomsday by Complex (Xbox, was new to me) video, video
6. I Feel Like a Computer by Melon Dezign video, video
7. Final Audition by Plastic video, video
8. 195/95 by Plastic video
9. 1995 by kewlers & mfx video, video
10. Aesterozoa by kewlers video
Newer:
11. Halfsome by CNCD and Fairlight video, video
12. Media Error by Fairlight, CNCD and Orange video, video
Here is a list I made a few months ago of my ~16 favorites from back in the day upon discovering demoscene.tv, in no particular order:
1. Stars Wonders of the World by Nooon - video, video
2. Megablast by Orange video
3. Super Television by Orange video, video
4. CNCD vs Orange video
5. Inside by CNCD video, video
6. Bill G Force by Complex video
7. a few by Tpolm videos
8. Professor Nutbutter by Mindprobe no video available!
9. Closer by CNCD video, video
10. Control by Coma video
11. Assembly 2004 Invite by Moppi video, video
12. Ix by Moppi video, video
13. a few others by moppi videos
14. Ninja 2 by Melon Dezign & Scoop video
15. Ninja by Melon Dezign (Amiga) video
16. Reve by Pulse video
Agreed. But just like last time, the Slashdot summary is completely wrong. Last time, the linked article was titled "Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery" and the Slashdot summary summarized "A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours..."
This time, the linked article mis-reported, and the Slashdot summary followed. The Slashdot summary is also inconsistent with itself: It refers to "increased battery capacity" and then has the title "Nanotech Anode Promises 10X Battery Life". "Capacity" is not "lifetime"; it is proportional to energy density.
In both cases it is about the same research and publication in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, which I link to in my first post in this story: abstract, fulltext, fulltext pdf - for some reason they are all freely downloadable. In terms of "battery life", they have only demonstrated 30 cycles (data in the supporting information for the paper), and only 10 in the actual paper!
The Slashdot summary correctly draws from the news.com article, but the news.com article is mis-reporting this news. It is not battery life that is being discussed but rather energy density. Capacity has never referred to battery life. The Nature Nanotechnology journal article in question (abstract, fulltext, pdf - for some reason they are all freely downloadable) reports that their Si nanowire anode has a little more than 10 times the capacity of common graphite anodes, and they have achieved that in charging and 75% of that in discharging.
In terms of cycles, they have data in their supporting info document that shows they have only tested a cell with this electrode up to 30 cycles! So no discussion of battery life can even be made.
Energy density can be found by knowing the capacity of each electrode, the electrolyte properties and volume, and the cell voltage (which is usually about 4 V for Li-ion batteries). They claim to have reached their theoretical maximum 4200 mAh/g capacity for a Si electrode. This is indeed ~10x the capacity of graphite anodes, which are the lowest capacity anodes used in Li-ion batteries (300-400 mAh/g). More common carbon (C6) anodes are about twice that. And, in fact, Li metal anodes have about the same capacity, 3800 to 4000 mAh/g, as these Si nanowires. So the capacity is hardly a breakthrough. However, they may be more safe than Li metal: "Li metal" batteries are Li-ion batteries with Li metal electrodes, which have had safety issues due to Li dendrites (trees) growing between electrodes and shorting out the cell. This article (needs subscription) from years back explains the details of electrode choices and other challenges regarding Li-ion and Li metal batteries. It seems these Si nanowire electrodes may yield similar energy density to Li metal, or several times that of the Li-ion batteries that are in common use.
Electrical heating by itself to split CO2 or H2O wouldn't likely be economical, but electrolysis (as you suggest) could be, especially high temperature electrolysis (where the inefficiencies in the process are effectively electrically heating the electrolysis cell).
If such electrolysis can be made efficiently and cheaply enough and wind (or solar or nuclear) electricity is inexpensive enough, sure it can be competitive: note that $0.03/kWh of electricity is equivalent in terms of raw energy content as $1/gal gasoline. "In terms of raw energy content" assumes 100% electrochemical conversion efficiency and neglects capital cost of the electrolyzer.
Hi mdsolar. I think I've seen your name around in relation to CitizenRe... You're a representative or so, no? Is the program active yet or still taking pre-orders?
I agree that aviation is the number one irreducible need. The anonymous reply to you said it well with fuel as % weight of the vehicles. But I also suspect we won't be loading up sea vessels with batteries either. And cars will be using liquid hydrocarbons for a long time, even if plug-in hybrids make a transition.
Your proposal is interesting- you want to produce aviation fuel in the home, electrolytically I assume (since electricity would be the only energy input into a person's home; no high-temperature solar collectors), and heat the home with waste F-T heat, and ship out the aviation fuel? Unfortunately, I don't think that kind of a distributed fuel production system will pan out. There are reasons fuel production/reforming/etc takes place as an industrial operation under controlled conditions, economically and otherwise. Logistically you've got to keep track of tons of tiny fuel sources rather than a huge production plant. And you're installing CO2 collectors and F-T reactors in houses. People may not want those kind of reactors in their basement just to fuel some jets. I think it belongs in an industrial setting.
Although, it could be possible that the homeowner gets free home heating if the price is right (they sell the produced fuel for more than their electricity cost)... but also who pays for installing the F-T reactor and CO2 collector? Not the homeowner. I think there are better non-residential ways to do it, even in a distributed or small-scale fashion. Waste F-T heat can have other good uses besides home heating as well.
CO + H2O => CO2 + H2 is the common water-gas shift which is spontaneous (thermodynamically) below 800C. Used in coal-to-liquids after gasifying coal to make H2, and in H2 production from natural gas (CH4 + H2O => CO + 3 H2 and then make more hydrogen with CO + H2O => CO2 + H2).
CO2 + H2 => CO + H2O is the reverse water-gas shift which requires high temperatures and/or membranes for product separation to make it work. It is more difficult.
Combining CO2 with H2 is the most common method people have been discussing to produce fuels, since the 1970s using nuclear power, flue gas CO2 and hydrogen produced by electrolysis (look up Meyer Steinberg, I believe). CO2 + H2 can be reacted across a catalyst to make methanol without needing the reverse water-gas shift (3H2 + CO2 => CH3OH + H2O); it is a variation of traditional methanol production from CO + H2 (which typically has a little CO2 in there as well).
My other post for this article discusses the purpose behind such a fuel synthesis process more.
I am working on a similar process that synthesizes hydrocarbon fuels from carbon dioxide, water, and non-fossil energy (could be solar) and should eventually have some publications out about this. There are several ways to go about this. But first, let me comment on some of the comments:
Regarding the "They're leaving the production of actual liquid fuel to other people... all this thing does right now is produce carbon monoxide." comment, reducing CO2 to CO is the hardest part of the process. Once you have concentrated CO, you can follow the coal-to-liquids processes and water-gas shift (CO + H2O => CO2 + H2) to get hydrogen and run the syngas (CO + H2 mixture) into Fischer-Tropsch reactors. They've been doing this for 50 years in South Africa to produce synthetic diesel.
Regarding the "Renewable not!" comment and using power-plant flue gas CO2 as the input to this process, this would indeed not be sustainable. However, if industrial capture of CO2 from the air is available, one can fully close the loop and have a sustainable hydrocarbon fuel cycle. Flue gas CO2 could be a good option in the short term, however. For instance, if solar and other nearly-carbon-free energy sources begin to rapidly take over, coal plants will not immediately be shut down. Other CO2-emitting industrial plants such as aluminum smelters, etc, will also have CO2 emissions to deal with, and this form of using it to store non-fossil energy by recycling it once as a liquid fuel would be worthwhile. One comment discussed this transition well.
Related, other comments say "why not just use the solar energy to produce electricity". These intermittent resources need storage, and liquid fuel storage is not a bad method (and very versatile). Others responded about storage.
So, processes like this are a way to store non-fossil energy as a convenient energy-dense fuel which can be used in our existing petroleum fuel infrastructure and vehicles (as opposed to hydrogen and batteries). Biofuels can do the same, and there are many comments above ("I saw something like this... it's called a tree") mentioning biofuels and how this process replicates it with much more complexity; indeed you could call this whole process including the Fischer-Tropsch fuel synthesis "artificial photosynthesis". However, this process cuts out the middle-man of the plant in biofuels processes, which has much lower sunlight-to-fuel efficiency than industrial solar collectors (PV or thermal) and requires a lot of fertilizers and pesticides to boost growth rate. Such land- and resource-intensive agriculture is not sustainable in its current form and may not ever be on the scale we will need it.
TFA discusses a solar-heat-driven thermochemical process that has potential. A somewhat similar solar-heat thermolytic process splits CO2 directly at higher temperatures. There are many other methods of accomplishing this that are at different levels of development and being researched, including electrochemical (pdf link1, pdf link2), photoelectrochemical, photo(bio)chemical...
Slashdot Mirror
And here are some more that are not favorites but still entertaining, either back then or now.
Older:
1. Square by Pulse video, video
2. Tribes by Pulse video, video
3. Sunflower by Pulse video
4. Horizontal Cool by CNCD video
5. Doomsday by Complex (Xbox, was new to me) video, video
6. I Feel Like a Computer by Melon Dezign video, video
7. Final Audition by Plastic video, video
8. 195/95 by Plastic video
9. 1995 by kewlers & mfx video, video
10. Aesterozoa by kewlers video
Newer:
11. Halfsome by CNCD and Fairlight video, video
12. Media Error by Fairlight, CNCD and Orange video, video
And a demo made for an oscilloscope
Here is a list I made a few months ago of my ~16 favorites from back in the day upon discovering demoscene.tv, in no particular order:
1. Stars Wonders of the World by Nooon - video, video
2. Megablast by Orange video
3. Super Television by Orange video, video
4. CNCD vs Orange video
5. Inside by CNCD video, video
6. Bill G Force by Complex video
7. a few by Tpolm videos
8. Professor Nutbutter by Mindprobe no video available!
9. Closer by CNCD video, video
10. Control by Coma video
11. Assembly 2004 Invite by Moppi video, video
12. Ix by Moppi video, video
13. a few others by moppi videos
14. Ninja 2 by Melon Dezign & Scoop video
15. Ninja by Melon Dezign (Amiga) video
16. Reve by Pulse video
Agreed. But just like last time, the Slashdot summary is completely wrong. Last time, the linked article was titled "Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery" and the Slashdot summary summarized "A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours..."
This time, the linked article mis-reported, and the Slashdot summary followed. The Slashdot summary is also inconsistent with itself: It refers to "increased battery capacity" and then has the title "Nanotech Anode Promises 10X Battery Life". "Capacity" is not "lifetime"; it is proportional to energy density.
In both cases it is about the same research and publication in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, which I link to in my first post in this story: abstract, fulltext, fulltext pdf - for some reason they are all freely downloadable. In terms of "battery life", they have only demonstrated 30 cycles (data in the supporting information for the paper), and only 10 in the actual paper!
It is capacity, not battery life. The news.com article mis-reported the results. See my other post further down which I just posted.
The Slashdot summary correctly draws from the news.com article, but the news.com article is mis-reporting this news. It is not battery life that is being discussed but rather energy density. Capacity has never referred to battery life. The Nature Nanotechnology journal article in question (abstract, fulltext, pdf - for some reason they are all freely downloadable) reports that their Si nanowire anode has a little more than 10 times the capacity of common graphite anodes, and they have achieved that in charging and 75% of that in discharging.
In terms of cycles, they have data in their supporting info document that shows they have only tested a cell with this electrode up to 30 cycles! So no discussion of battery life can even be made.
Energy density can be found by knowing the capacity of each electrode, the electrolyte properties and volume, and the cell voltage (which is usually about 4 V for Li-ion batteries). They claim to have reached their theoretical maximum 4200 mAh/g capacity for a Si electrode. This is indeed ~10x the capacity of graphite anodes, which are the lowest capacity anodes used in Li-ion batteries (300-400 mAh/g). More common carbon (C6) anodes are about twice that. And, in fact, Li metal anodes have about the same capacity, 3800 to 4000 mAh/g, as these Si nanowires. So the capacity is hardly a breakthrough. However, they may be more safe than Li metal: "Li metal" batteries are Li-ion batteries with Li metal electrodes, which have had safety issues due to Li dendrites (trees) growing between electrodes and shorting out the cell. This article (needs subscription) from years back explains the details of electrode choices and other challenges regarding Li-ion and Li metal batteries. It seems these Si nanowire electrodes may yield similar energy density to Li metal, or several times that of the Li-ion batteries that are in common use.
Electrical heating by itself to split CO2 or H2O wouldn't likely be economical, but electrolysis (as you suggest) could be, especially high temperature electrolysis (where the inefficiencies in the process are effectively electrically heating the electrolysis cell).
If such electrolysis can be made efficiently and cheaply enough and wind (or solar or nuclear) electricity is inexpensive enough, sure it can be competitive: note that $0.03/kWh of electricity is equivalent in terms of raw energy content as $1/gal gasoline. "In terms of raw energy content" assumes 100% electrochemical conversion efficiency and neglects capital cost of the electrolyzer.
Hi mdsolar. I think I've seen your name around in relation to CitizenRe... You're a representative or so, no? Is the program active yet or still taking pre-orders?
I agree that aviation is the number one irreducible need. The anonymous reply to you said it well with fuel as % weight of the vehicles. But I also suspect we won't be loading up sea vessels with batteries either. And cars will be using liquid hydrocarbons for a long time, even if plug-in hybrids make a transition.
Your proposal is interesting- you want to produce aviation fuel in the home, electrolytically I assume (since electricity would be the only energy input into a person's home; no high-temperature solar collectors), and heat the home with waste F-T heat, and ship out the aviation fuel? Unfortunately, I don't think that kind of a distributed fuel production system will pan out. There are reasons fuel production/reforming/etc takes place as an industrial operation under controlled conditions, economically and otherwise. Logistically you've got to keep track of tons of tiny fuel sources rather than a huge production plant. And you're installing CO2 collectors and F-T reactors in houses. People may not want those kind of reactors in their basement just to fuel some jets. I think it belongs in an industrial setting.
Although, it could be possible that the homeowner gets free home heating if the price is right (they sell the produced fuel for more than their electricity cost)... but also who pays for installing the F-T reactor and CO2 collector? Not the homeowner. I think there are better non-residential ways to do it, even in a distributed or small-scale fashion. Waste F-T heat can have other good uses besides home heating as well.
CO + H2O => CO2 + H2 is the common water-gas shift which is spontaneous (thermodynamically) below 800C. Used in coal-to-liquids after gasifying coal to make H2, and in H2 production from natural gas (CH4 + H2O => CO + 3 H2 and then make more hydrogen with CO + H2O => CO2 + H2).
CO2 + H2 => CO + H2O is the reverse water-gas shift which requires high temperatures and/or membranes for product separation to make it work. It is more difficult.
Combining CO2 with H2 is the most common method people have been discussing to produce fuels, since the 1970s using nuclear power, flue gas CO2 and hydrogen produced by electrolysis (look up Meyer Steinberg, I believe). CO2 + H2 can be reacted across a catalyst to make methanol without needing the reverse water-gas shift (3H2 + CO2 => CH3OH + H2O); it is a variation of traditional methanol production from CO + H2 (which typically has a little CO2 in there as well).
My other post for this article discusses the purpose behind such a fuel synthesis process more.
I am working on a similar process that synthesizes hydrocarbon fuels from carbon dioxide, water, and non-fossil energy (could be solar) and should eventually have some publications out about this. There are several ways to go about this. But first, let me comment on some of the comments:
... all this thing does right now is produce carbon monoxide." comment, reducing CO2 to CO is the hardest part of the process. Once you have concentrated CO, you can follow the coal-to-liquids processes and water-gas shift (CO + H2O => CO2 + H2) to get hydrogen and run the syngas (CO + H2 mixture) into Fischer-Tropsch reactors. They've been doing this for 50 years in South Africa to produce synthetic diesel.
Regarding the "They're leaving the production of actual liquid fuel to other people
Regarding the "Renewable not!" comment and using power-plant flue gas CO2 as the input to this process, this would indeed not be sustainable. However, if industrial capture of CO2 from the air is available, one can fully close the loop and have a sustainable hydrocarbon fuel cycle. Flue gas CO2 could be a good option in the short term, however. For instance, if solar and other nearly-carbon-free energy sources begin to rapidly take over, coal plants will not immediately be shut down. Other CO2-emitting industrial plants such as aluminum smelters, etc, will also have CO2 emissions to deal with, and this form of using it to store non-fossil energy by recycling it once as a liquid fuel would be worthwhile. One comment discussed this transition well.
Related, other comments say "why not just use the solar energy to produce electricity". These intermittent resources need storage, and liquid fuel storage is not a bad method (and very versatile). Others responded about storage.
So, processes like this are a way to store non-fossil energy as a convenient energy-dense fuel which can be used in our existing petroleum fuel infrastructure and vehicles (as opposed to hydrogen and batteries). Biofuels can do the same, and there are many comments above ("I saw something like this... it's called a tree") mentioning biofuels and how this process replicates it with much more complexity; indeed you could call this whole process including the Fischer-Tropsch fuel synthesis "artificial photosynthesis". However, this process cuts out the middle-man of the plant in biofuels processes, which has much lower sunlight-to-fuel efficiency than industrial solar collectors (PV or thermal) and requires a lot of fertilizers and pesticides to boost growth rate. Such land- and resource-intensive agriculture is not sustainable in its current form and may not ever be on the scale we will need it.
TFA discusses a solar-heat-driven thermochemical process that has potential. A somewhat similar solar-heat thermolytic process splits CO2 directly at higher temperatures. There are many other methods of accomplishing this that are at different levels of development and being researched, including electrochemical (pdf link1, pdf link2), photoelectrochemical, photo(bio)chemical...