Thank you. Video games actually got me here, because I wanted to make my own games, and thus learned programming. The problem is that schools these days are all about sports and art. Less Shakespeare, less football, more business, and more science please.
If that was really a problem, you could just condense it and get clean water. We should think things through, but nothing is possible to the overly cautious. Corollary: if preventing everything is your goal, be overly cautious.
15 kJ is nothing and so is 38 kJ. You get much of it back anyway. The energy needed to split water is 243 kJ/mol, so the energy is not really a big deal. Synthesizing larger chain hydrocarbons is actually an exothermic process, so it's not a big deal.
The issue of CO2 capture is not a totally solved problem. Current calculations indicate that 1/8 the total solar input would be CO2 trapping with limestone. However, the question is whether you could get other oxides and hydroxides to react with baking soda. I.E., iron oxide or copper oxide. Also, it appears that the following reaction occurs at around 70C-200C: 2 NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2
Thanks for bringing up that recuperator issue. I was not aware about that one.
The problem is that in my country, the EPA is preventing that. It does not cost much of anything to convert to gasoline from the same material. In fact, it's an exothermic reaction, and it's really just as easy. Swap one catalyst with another and you methanol instead of methane. Add in a zeolite catalyst and remove the water. Gasoline.
My list:
Primary batteries -> rechargeable batteries
Solar air conditioning
Synthetic gasoline from hydrogen
Solar thermochemical hydrogen production
Solar thermal for your rooftop
Metal air fuel cells
Solar thermochemical metal smelting
It's not the issue of money only. Its that the experiment scares the living daylights out of me. Lye, will blind you if a drop gets in your eye. One drop. Now, we're going to have that at 500+ C. Scary.
Nope. Because all the energy that hits a solar cell gets converted into heat anyway. Wind, yes if you really, really put in a lot of wind farms. More wind farms than is sane, really. But solar, all that heat just ends up in the soil anyway.
Actually, the fact that we think ahead and find new sources of energy, like this, indicates that we are above a bacteria colony. If we're a bacteria colony, we would just burn oil until we ran out. But, we would not have oil in the first place, because we would have died when we ran out of whale oil.
I'm an Atlas Shrugged thumper and I want investment in clean energy. Why, because it's free! Turn something free (sunlight) into energy, megaprofits! Sell people devices to do that, megaprofits! The people have spoken, the market is following.
Disclaimer: the poster is not an extreme freemarketeer, and sees value in regulation and taxation.
Yes, electrolysis is 70%+ efficient. But, it first must go through that pesky and pricey 20% efficient solar panel, so you get %14 solar to hydrogen. Wouldn't it be great if we could skip that solar panel and all the associated pricing, and go right to hydrogen? That's what this is about.
Also, you don't want methane. You want gasoline. By the time you end up with methane, you have gasoline. Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system. We pretty much already have the technology, and I wish someone with a real lab (not me) would do a tech demo.
Actually, you don't want to burn down to methane, and it's not really "burning" (maybe it is). It would be better to make gasoline, instead of methane (easier to transport, runs a normal car). The process is here. Here's the chemistry:
CO2 + H2 = CO + H2O
xCO + (2x+1)H2 = CxH(2x+2) + xH2O
Where x often equals 8.
The amount of hydrogen that escapes that way will be very small. That's wasting money, and no self-respecting capitalist pig would let that happen! But seriously, most of the hydrogen would be reacted with CO2 to create the liquid fuels we all know and love.
I should probably start logging in at some point so that people actually read my comments. A shame I can't be bothered to remember my password.
Yes you should. This is very very interesting that someone who works on thermochemical reads slashdot!!! Are you on the CR5 at Sandia? I'm a highschool student who spent a lot of spare time looking at various thermochemical schemes. Trying to understand the chemical engineering behind them. You can read my conclusions if you want. Please keep in mind that I have no real lab and haven't done any experiments.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that I liked FeO/Fe2O3 the best. The problem I saw was passivation of the iron oxide. So I looked many ways to get rid of this problem. By either misting molten FeO, grinding FeO into smaller particles, reaction with acids, etc. But one I found that I think has not been considered is the disproportion of the FeO. FeO disproportionate at temps below about 500 C as 4FeO -> Fe + Fe3O4. I have no idea what the resulting mixture looks like mechanically when this happens, but according to stuff I read it does indeed happen. Thermodynamic calculations with NIST data show that the reaction is favorable. Metalic iron reacts much better with steam than FeO, AFAIK.
The next cycle I liked was the ISPRA mark 2 sodium manganese cycle:
1. Na2O.MnO2 + H2O -> 2NaOH(a) + MnO2 at 100 C
2. 4MnO2(s) -> 2Mn2O3(s) + O2(g) at 487 C
3. Mn2O3 + 4NaOH -> 2Na2O.MnO2 + H2(g) + H2O at 800 C
This seemed quite good except for that high temperature NaOH.
This weird cycle came up in one of Ken Schultz's papers and I found it quite interesting. It's all liquid, and it seems quite strange. Could it work? I have no idea. There could be corrosion problems, with the KOH.
1. K2O2 + H2O -> 2KOH + O2 at 100 C
2. 2KOH + 2K -> 2K2O + H2 at 725 C
3. 2K2O -> 2K + K2O2 at 850 C
Another idea I had was what I call the thermoelectrochemical engine. Here's how it works. You have two metals, A and B. A can be smelted from it's oxide by hydrogen or CO, and B can reduce water or CO2. There is a non-trivial potential difference between the two metals. For example, A = iron, and B = tin. I'm guessing you can see where this is going.
1. 2Fe + SnO2 -> 2FeO + Sn + 0.5ish V in aqueous electrolyte
2. Sn + 2H2O -> SnO2 + 2H2 at some slightly elevated temperature.
3. 2FeO + 2H2 -> 2Fe + 2H2O at some elevated temperature
There are probably better metals than iron and tin but I picked them because I'm pretty sure they'd work.
Thanks for reading. I'm thinking that FeO is better than sulfur-iodine because there's no high temp separation, and no corrosives running around at high temperature.
Slashdot Mirror
When you mentioned how narcissistic people are, I felt the need to go on FaceBook and write at length about my feelings about the matter.
None. None at all.
Only in metals. In other systems, quantum mechanics takes over.
Thank you. Video games actually got me here, because I wanted to make my own games, and thus learned programming. The problem is that schools these days are all about sports and art. Less Shakespeare, less football, more business, and more science please.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it
as your sig. Crime will never go away, but you can reduce it.
And since you violate intellectual property law, aren't you a criminal?
If that was really a problem, you could just condense it and get clean water. We should think things through, but nothing is possible to the overly cautious. Corollary: if preventing everything is your goal, be overly cautious.
You can find a very effective method of hydrogen storage here.
You can also find a variety of hydrogen vehicles.
What you can't find is a way to get hydrogen cheap enough without CO2 release.
15 kJ is nothing and so is 38 kJ. You get much of it back anyway. The energy needed to split water is 243 kJ/mol, so the energy is not really a big deal. Synthesizing larger chain hydrocarbons is actually an exothermic process, so it's not a big deal.
The issue of CO2 capture is not a totally solved problem. Current calculations indicate that 1/8 the total solar input would be CO2 trapping with limestone. However, the question is whether you could get other oxides and hydroxides to react with baking soda. I.E., iron oxide or copper oxide. Also, it appears that the following reaction occurs at around 70C-200C: 2 NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2
Thanks for bringing up that recuperator issue. I was not aware about that one.
The problem is that in my country, the EPA is preventing that. It does not cost much of anything to convert to gasoline from the same material. In fact, it's an exothermic reaction, and it's really just as easy. Swap one catalyst with another and you methanol instead of methane. Add in a zeolite catalyst and remove the water. Gasoline.
Actually, he could promote economic development in Africa, to reduce pop growth.
Or he could build an EV, insulate his house better, install solar, wind (generation > conservation).
Public transport is not a good idea. Ride a motorcycle.
My list:
Primary batteries -> rechargeable batteries
Solar air conditioning
Synthetic gasoline from hydrogen
Solar thermochemical hydrogen production
Solar thermal for your rooftop
Metal air fuel cells
Solar thermochemical metal smelting
Not in that order, particularly.
And, in order to get silicon, you're going to get rid of the oxygen.
The problem I see with the UT-3 is that hydrogen bromide running around at 700+ C. Corrosion is going to be a real problem.
It's not the issue of money only. Its that the experiment scares the living daylights out of me. Lye, will blind you if a drop gets in your eye. One drop. Now, we're going to have that at 500+ C. Scary.
Nope. Because all the energy that hits a solar cell gets converted into heat anyway. Wind, yes if you really, really put in a lot of wind farms. More wind farms than is sane, really. But solar, all that heat just ends up in the soil anyway.
Sorry, earthling. My disguise is broken.
Actually, the fact that we think ahead and find new sources of energy, like this, indicates that we are above a bacteria colony. If we're a bacteria colony, we would just burn oil until we ran out. But, we would not have oil in the first place, because we would have died when we ran out of whale oil.
I'm an Atlas Shrugged thumper and I want investment in clean energy. Why, because it's free! Turn something free (sunlight) into energy, megaprofits! Sell people devices to do that, megaprofits! The people have spoken, the market is following.
Disclaimer: the poster is not an extreme freemarketeer, and sees value in regulation and taxation.
Yes, electrolysis is 70%+ efficient. But, it first must go through that pesky and pricey 20% efficient solar panel, so you get %14 solar to hydrogen. Wouldn't it be great if we could skip that solar panel and all the associated pricing, and go right to hydrogen? That's what this is about.
Also, you don't want methane. You want gasoline. By the time you end up with methane, you have gasoline. Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system. We pretty much already have the technology, and I wish someone with a real lab (not me) would do a tech demo.
Actually, you don't want to burn down to methane, and it's not really "burning" (maybe it is). It would be better to make gasoline, instead of methane (easier to transport, runs a normal car). The process is here. Here's the chemistry:
CO2 + H2 = CO + H2O
xCO + (2x+1)H2 = CxH(2x+2) + xH2O
Where x often equals 8.
Yeah. Maybe we should start coming up with a way to send all these anti-tech people there? Should we pay for flights back?
Yes, it won't require all that much, but iridium is rarer than platinum, and it's still obnoxious to have iridium. Can't we use scrap iron instead?
Space travel is great and I'm all for it, but EROEI.
The amount of hydrogen that escapes that way will be very small. That's wasting money, and no self-respecting capitalist pig would let that happen! But seriously, most of the hydrogen would be reacted with CO2 to create the liquid fuels we all know and love.
I should probably start logging in at some point so that people actually read my comments. A shame I can't be bothered to remember my password.
Yes you should. This is very very interesting that someone who works on thermochemical reads slashdot!!! Are you on the CR5 at Sandia? I'm a highschool student who spent a lot of spare time looking at various thermochemical schemes. Trying to understand the chemical engineering behind them. You can read my conclusions if you want. Please keep in mind that I have no real lab and haven't done any experiments.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that I liked FeO/Fe2O3 the best. The problem I saw was passivation of the iron oxide. So I looked many ways to get rid of this problem. By either misting molten FeO, grinding FeO into smaller particles, reaction with acids, etc. But one I found that I think has not been considered is the disproportion of the FeO. FeO disproportionate at temps below about 500 C as 4FeO -> Fe + Fe3O4. I have no idea what the resulting mixture looks like mechanically when this happens, but according to stuff I read it does indeed happen. Thermodynamic calculations with NIST data show that the reaction is favorable. Metalic iron reacts much better with steam than FeO, AFAIK.
The next cycle I liked was the ISPRA mark 2 sodium manganese cycle:
1. Na2O.MnO2 + H2O -> 2NaOH(a) + MnO2 at 100 C
2. 4MnO2(s) -> 2Mn2O3(s) + O2(g) at 487 C
3. Mn2O3 + 4NaOH -> 2Na2O.MnO2 + H2(g) + H2O at 800 C
This seemed quite good except for that high temperature NaOH.
This weird cycle came up in one of Ken Schultz's papers and I found it quite interesting. It's all liquid, and it seems quite strange. Could it work? I have no idea. There could be corrosion problems, with the KOH.
1. K2O2 + H2O -> 2KOH + O2 at 100 C
2. 2KOH + 2K -> 2K2O + H2 at 725 C
3. 2K2O -> 2K + K2O2 at 850 C
Another idea I had was what I call the thermoelectrochemical engine. Here's how it works. You have two metals, A and B. A can be smelted from it's oxide by hydrogen or CO, and B can reduce water or CO2. There is a non-trivial potential difference between the two metals. For example, A = iron, and B = tin. I'm guessing you can see where this is going.
1. 2Fe + SnO2 -> 2FeO + Sn + 0.5ish V in aqueous electrolyte
2. Sn + 2H2O -> SnO2 + 2H2 at some slightly elevated temperature.
3. 2FeO + 2H2 -> 2Fe + 2H2O at some elevated temperature
There are probably better metals than iron and tin but I picked them because I'm pretty sure they'd work.
Thanks for reading. I'm thinking that FeO is better than sulfur-iodine because there's no high temp separation, and no corrosives running around at high temperature.