Can we build an efficient hybrid nuclear-natural gas engine that emits no CO2?

  • 13 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Chondrally

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 71
    • View Profile
The politicians couldn't understand or respond to this even with all their advisers!

The Advanced Propulsion Centre(APC), Warwickshire,Coventry,UK would be interested in this: [nofollow]

In the following you can liberally substitute a conventional internal combustion engine for the
turbine.  The fuel efficiencies still apply,  even though the energy transfer to wheels is only about
20-24%.  The gas turbines would be necessary in a power plant version.

Almost Perpetual motion exists in biology , its the coupled symbiotic reactions of respiration

and photosynthesis where energy is supplied by the sun, also it exists with genetics and

catalysts. this system of equations is NOT perpetual motion, and in fact the overall sum is

endothermic, requiring energy from wind/solar or nuclear (non fossil fuel). The coupled

reactions of CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O (1)which is exothermic respiration combustion -74.6

+ zero -->-393.5-2(285.8) =74.6-955.1=-880.5kJ/mol/K so this reaction is exothermic (gives off

heat) and proceeds spontaneously. is coupled with the following reactions 4H2O --> 4H2 +

2O2 (2) by electrolysis 90-93% efficient with catalysts ( the 4H2O coming from the 2H2O in

(1) and (3) respectively) 4(-285.8)--> zero + zero gives 1143.2 kJ/Mol/K/.9 = 1270.2

kJ/Mol/K is what this reaction costs and it is endothermic 4H2+CO2 -->(nickel or rubidium

alumina catalyst)--> CH4+ 2H2O =-74 kcal *4.184kJ/mol/K/kcal=-

309.6kJ/mol/K (3) 74kcal =309.6kJ/mol/K is the experimental amount of energy that this

reaction produces exothermically

Carbon Dioxide Methanation on a Ruthenium (or Nickel) catalyst. [nofollow] [nofollow]

as it gives off heat (but the reacting gases need to preheated to 300K or thereabouts). So the

three reactions require a total of 1270-309.6-880.5+(heat to warm gases to 300K) kJ/mol/K to be

supplied by wind/solar or nuclear for these three reactions to proceed. We need also to separate

water from two of the reactions requiring cooling to 90 degrees Celcius at least and then heating

of the gases to 300 degrees Celcius prior to catalytic reaction. All of this requires more energy

still. . It wouldn't be possible at all without the catalyst being able to make the C and O2 while

still bonded to some degree quantum mechanically accessible from the CO2 to the 4H2

chemically for such a low energy of activation cost. Together these coupled reactions can cycle

endlessly if their rates of reaction can be controlled to allow them to react in a commensurate

time frame. Parallelization of reactors helps in the second case to achieve the overall rate

equivalency in terms of mols per unit time processed because the reaction (3) has a much slower

time constant than the combustion reaction (1). This is NOT perpetual motion just like

respiration and photosynthesis are not perpetual motion.You can argue that the catalyst provides

energy bonds that hold the CO2 bonds temporarily in place while the H2 reacts with the

molecule quantum mechanically and that the O2 at the beginning of the combustion reaction is

added to the whole system from the environment, producing energy in combustion. There are

waste products in the combustion, CO,NOx etc... in trace amounts and their is a need to top up

the combustion process with natural gas. The reactions require energy to proceed like from wind

/solar/nuclear. So it is not very practical except as a source of methane for the plastics

industry. This process recombines CO2 back into methane which is a well documented

Methanation process. Also Amine distillation towers can separate the CO2 from the other

exhaust gases and deliver it to equation (3) in a quite pure form to be combined with the 4H2

from the electrolysis. Energy for amine CO2 separation must be provided from the total energy

of the system, which i believe might be possible from wind/solar/nuclear. But it the

methanation reaction that requires energy and the electrolysis which is endothermic, it requires

energy in order to proceed. Also Electrolysis of water alone requires more energy than is

provided by the combustion of methane. So the overall net energy balance is one requiring

outside energy. For plastics production, providing the power for electrolysis and methanation is

worth it in the end, but not as cheap as a ready supply of methane from coal supplied by

microbes, or natural gas from gas wells. The Natural Gas/Methane Engine is a thermodynamic

possibility only with added energy from solar.

The hurdle is really the electrolysis. the following might spur innovation: Hydrogen Evolving

Solar Cells. [nofollow]

If this could be done by concentrating light, or better yet by concentrating heat from

combustion, upgrading the quality of the light to achieve the 1.4 eV needed with tandem cells or

single cells, that might do the trick.

A regular internal combustion engine at 24% efficiency uses about 7 Litres of C8H18 (octane)

per 100 km, or

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 --> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

-250.1 + 0 --> 8*(-393.51)+9*(-241.826) gives 5074.414 kJ/mol/K released

thermodynamically by 1 mol of octane

where 1 mol of C8H18 = 12*8+18=96 + 18=114 g/mol gives 1/114 mol/g*.6986 g/ml*7000ml =

42.89 mols of octane per 100 km.

gives 42.89 mols*5074.414 kJ/mol/K *.24 =52234 kJ/K or 52.234 MJ/K are required by the

engine at 24% efficiency

Methane produces

CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H2O

-156.3 + 0 ---> -393.51+2(-241.826)

yields -720.862 kJ/Mol/K for 1 mol of methane

So at 60% efficiency in a gas turbine we need 52.234/.6=87057 kJ/mol/K produced by natural

gas or methane combustion in a 60 % efficient turbine

this gives 120.8 mols of methane required or at 120 psi this is 362 Litres of methane required

Chapter 3 of Astrophysics in a Nutshell by Dan Maoz, equation 3.6

The sun delivers 1400 Watts/(square metre) at the top of the atmosphere and about 1000 W/m^2

at the earth's surface on bright sunny days, and if heat can be upgraded by nanotechnology to

electricity as Ted Sargent had originally promised, then maybe it will be possible after all.

Thermocouples are a valid way of converting a temperature gradient into electricity but are not

very efficient yet. More research is needed with nanotechnology. Today is a low light day=5000

lux (4 pm on Friday,April 26/2014 - a darkish overcast day in Halton , Ontario), at room temp

(25 degrees Celcius) we need about 362 litres of methane per 100 km through the turbine per

hour or N=120.8 mols/hour=.03356 Mol/sec we need about 24.2 Watts/K to run enough

electrolysis and methanation for .03356 mol of gas/sec, or at 10000 lux = 100 Watts / m^2 yields

80.67 Watts/ Square Metre at 30% efficiency yields about 1 metre^2 is what we need in a solar

panel on a low light day to generate 81 Watts=Joules/second of electricity. So between about 1

m^2 should do it. Its in the right ball park. There were moments of the day , a little brighter ,

that measured 17000 lux. On bright days at noon it is 100,000 lux. If we used a battery, we

could store this electricity and average out the requirement and get by with only 1 m^2 for all

circumstances...!!! [nofollow]

Solar nanotechnology report on Ted Sargents Colloid Quantum Dot technology [nofollow] [nofollow]



The combustion generates 880.5 kJ/mol/K and the methanation takes 360 kJ/mol/K. So if

electrolysis can be achieved for next to nothing with solar energy input. We have a viable

Natural Gas/Methane Engine, which would be non-polluting of CO2, only trace NOx,CO, and it

would be extremely fuel efficient, perhaps achieving 3000 to 5000 km per fillup. And it could

provide heat either for nanotech solar cells or just to heat the passengers in winter. Likewise the

combustion turbine generator could provide electricity to power the electrics of the vehicle.

29 January 2014 - 1:49am The methane engine is a dream to aspire to: Reality sets in:

Natural gas is the most likely source of methane commercially at the present time. it contains

varying amounts of methane, propane and butane, as well as sulphur compounds to give it that

noticeable odour so that it is detectable if it leaks. Natural gas can be used directly in this

engine, The CO2 can be captured with amine techniques and probably not with zeolite

techniques, as zeolite performs well in the lab, but in a real world engine it clogs pretty

quickly, and there is no easy way to unclog it without some breakthrough or new

material. Similarly for the zeolite that supposedly would separate the CO2 from the other

exhaust gases. Natural gas varies in its concentrations of methane, propane and butane from

week to week and source to source. A real world system would have to be able to handle this


Any carbon combustion process, even in turbines, produces soot and nitrous oxides and other

 carbon compounds. This would have to be filtered from the exhaust gases on a regular basis, so

an air filter to trap the soot is required, perhaps an electrostatic air filter. The residual soot will

clog the zeolite filter. Zeolite only works in labs, not for any real length of time in a real world

industrial chemical process except in rare special cases where multi millions of dollars have been

spent to crack a single chemical problem. I'd love to know how CO2 is sequestered from coal

plants and methane power plants, time to google search!!! ;-) [nofollow]...

amine techniques are now most favoured for CO2 capture.... as of 2009 (some in use since the

1930s). [nofollow] [nofollow]... [nofollow] [nofollow]... [nofollow] [nofollow]

This last paper appears to indicate that an amine related compound could do the trick instead of

zeolite for capturing the CO2 then releasing it elsewhere.

These problems cannot be solved without chemistry knowledge or education. Tom Cruise isn't

going to solve them and neither is John Travolta or Kate Blanchet or Leonardo Dicaprio. The

solution probably will come from a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation that will

charge through the nose for it. Their competition is fierce, and a lot is at stake. Often they have

an interest in preserving the status quo, because thats their only cash cow at the moment. Relax

and enjoy life a bit. Its too short anyway, and we need to have healthy food, R&R, and decent

exercise as well as productive work to keep us busy with a purpose.

New methane engine that recycles and emits no CO2, and is very very fuel efficient with

turbines, drastically reduce emissions 20 January 2014 - 5:41am

The gas turbine in the engine plan is 60% efficient and can be improved to 90% efficiency with a

dual system involving a steam turbine to take advantage of all the heat produced in the gas

turbine. A separate steam turbine at 90% efficiency can be run from the reactors that convert

4H2 + CO2 -> CH4 + 2H2O(steam), the steam can drive this turbine separately from the other


this 2H2O can be combined with the 2H2O output as a result of the methane combustion in the

gas turbine, CH4 + 2O2 ->CO2 + 2H2O. So 4H2O can be conversted by electrolysis at 90%

efficiency with potassium electrolyte (or better) to achieve 4H2O -> 4H2+2O2, the oxygen can

be recycled to be the input to the gas turbine or can be exhausted to the environment, as air can

be input to the gas turbine from the atmosphere, as we need the nitrogen gas and argon to

moderate the rate of the combustion process. The nitrous oxides and argon and excess methane

are exhausted to the environment after CO2 and H2O are separated from the exhaust stream, and

heat is recaptured with a heat pump , moving the heat to the water/steam cycle generated by the

catalytic reactors that convert CO2 back to CH4.

two or three zeolite sieves out of phase with each other in parallel can separate CO2 from the

exhaust gases of the gas turbine and with very high purity, pass the CO2 for mixing with 4H2 in

a heated manifold that expands the gases in volume, while reducing pressure and flow rate to

prevent explosion at the critical compression ratio of H2 and heat that would happen in

constricted volume under heating and mixing as the temperature and pressure increase beyond

acceptable limits.

A careful design methodology needs to be applied in Comsol Multiphysics to design the efficient

turbines on a small scale and model the reactors and duty cycles with a Matlab control system to

generate electricity from each turbine for an even more efficient conversion of chemical

reactions energy to electrical energy which could be used to power a home or power an electric

motor, the heat can be vented in summer, the electricity can run air conditioners in summer; the

heat can be used directly to heat the home in winter, spring and fall. Quinone batteries can be

used to store energy to power the home continuously during off duty sections of the cycle to

control temperatures and power output (see previous post). for more information.....

So this seems very favourable for achieving very efficient energy conversion and with little fuel

consumption per cycle, with few emissions to the environment, only trace gases. This could

revolutionize the energy situation and solve peak oil/methane, and render homes immune from

the vicissitudes of the grid, thus providing security to homes in power outages and snow and ice

and thunder storms which will become more numerous as climate change progresses. This

engine could allow geo-engineering on its own. It does not reverse the process, and we still

need to work on that, but it does effectively halt the progress of it.

Solar research and solar power promise much, but its really also the Peaceful Thorium Nuclear

that needs to be pursued: Generally speaking i am against nuclear power (political , military or

energy), but i fail to see a way to supply enough non fossil fuel energy without it and let the

climate recuperate. I would say it would be too late for the ocean based on my pH calculations

within the 8 year deadline. But if enough nuclear thorium gets achieved in the next 20 years and

nanotechnology delivers on electrolysis from heat or light, the ocean may yet recover in

time. We should not give up hope on this front. Natures recuperative powers are

considerable. Life has a strong will to live, and the living ocean wants to live. Lets hope we all

make good choices. As Al Gore's book said 'It's our choice'. He also has his new book out 'The


Without resonance techniques like those employed in music, there is no free lunch. And those

are faddy and don't last indefinately but keep having to be changed like with any ear worm.

There must be something wrong with using 1 m^2 solar to do electrolysis on a regular

basis, within an engine cycle, otherwise people would already be doing it like crazy, the

hydrogen and oxygen released alone are sufficient fuel but they can't be stored. They'd have to

be utilized as a fuel at the point of generation (or a little distance away in a cylinder). The oxygen

can be stored but there is no really acceptable way to store hydrogen gas as of yet except

temporarily in stainless steel. Also it is too unstable and too dangerous to store as it leaks almost

always and many many people have been hurt working with hydrogen gas, when it has exploded

unexpectedly. Noone who knows chemistry really trusts it as a fuel. It causes embrittlement of

metals that it passes by and thus corrosion on a very real basis. So i don't trust any engine that

makes use of hydrogen gas. Fuel cells are too limiting , because they rely on platinum and rare

earth metals and they are too expensive and there just aren't enough of them to go around on a

mass production basis. That was the flaw in the Ballard fuel cell approach and market model.

We can turn CO2 into limestone by injecting it as a liquid carbonic acid into basalt

rock. Perhaps thats what we should do with all the CO2. But that requires calcium

carbonate, and that, though in abundance, is limited as a sink in and of itself.

Only thorium nuclear makes sense. As much as i hate to admit it. The US Department of

Energy is working on thorium nuclear after the work of Eugene Wigner and Enrico Fermi who

built the first sustainable fission reactor for thorium in the 1950s and 1960s; the Chinese and the

people of India are all working on thorium nuclear reactors (witness Baba reactors). SNC

Lavalin in Canada, that took over from AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd), is working with

both the Chinese and the people of India.

They really give us no choice. If we accept we have a choice... to choose to be a forest manager

for instance or a forest ranger, then all we really need are fertile soil, fresh water and fresh

air. Perhaps, like Schauberger, thats what we should choose.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2016 22:12:03 by Chondrally »


Offline Arrual

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 24
    • View Profile
I did not read all of your "essay". But it looks like you answered your own question based on the length. If you did not answer it i believe we can make a hybrid engine that does just that. But i also believe it will still emmit CO2 emmitions.


Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
There have been proposals to capture CO2 emissions from cars and then feed them into something like an algae production plant, although doing so with automobiles is awkward.  However, there are also experiments to do it with fixed power plants...  if only they would run the power plants off of the algae rather than coal.

I think I've also read of proposals to produce carbon concentrates (coke) from power plants rather than carbon dioxide. 

C2nH4n + nO2 ==> 2nH2O + C2n + Energy.

The carbon concentrate (coke) then could be easily stored.  Unfortunately, one only recovers about half of the energy from the original fuel (coal?)

One could potentially develop a car that would burn liquid fuel to produce solid coke, then transfer the coke to a power plant that would reburn it, and capture the CO2 for reprocessing and feeding algae.

Personally I'm not in favor of irreversibly burying the CO2.  It may well be a resource that we'll need in the future.


Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
You could use a wood-fired steam engine. It will emit plenty of CO2 but that will all be absorbed by plants to produce more wood. Why mess with complicated chemistry when nature can do it all for you?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance


Offline Chondrally

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 71
    • View Profile
CO2 is rising every year and will reach 490 ppm by 2021 if we continue with the status quo.  It looks like world oil usage is ramping up, however systems are becoming ever more efficient and alternatives are coming into place like wind and solar and nuclear is already there.  However the main point is,  there are NOT enough plants or microbes or algae in the biosphere to absorb the excess CO2 produced by both biosphere and man made sources per year.  The equation simply does not balance.  True, the biosphere is growing every year, however so is urban sprawl and development which probably neutralizes the net effect of biosphere growth or even surpasses it.  Bottom line is regardless that CO2 ppm is increasing more each year than the year before.  So there are not enough trees and microbes and algae and ocean absorbing it to prevent it from reaching critical levels.  See my other post 'When will the magnesium carbonate buffer break in the ocean with increasing CO2' in the climate change section of the science forum for more information on this.  It sets hard limits about when the ocean might off gas CO2 in a runaway reaction at 490 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or either absorb extra CO2 and decrease pH levels; increasing acidity in the oceans, and  threatening life in the oceans and life on earth as a consequence.  Perhaps both of these effects will happen simultaneously at different places,  causing increased instability in heat transfer between atmosphere and ocean and instability in weather patterns.  Bottom line is we need this technology now.


Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
No new technology required. Just make fewer babies. 10% of anthropogenic CO2 is from human exhalation, 25% from farm animals. If we reproduce at half the replacement rate for 100 years we will reduce the human population (and thus the farm animal population) to a point at which everyone can live sustainably in a biofuelled carbon-neutral world, at something like the current western standard of living.

It won't happen because economics demands shortage of supply and expansion of demand, and you don't want your house to be worth 80% less than you paid for it, do you? 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance


Offline Chondrally

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 71
    • View Profile
I think your rounded numbers are off by quite a bit.  The amount of CO2 coming out of transportation and coal and gas power plants and industry like steel, etc... dwarfs exhalation CO2 by a long margin.  Where did you get your rounded numbers from?  To really get a handle on the true numbers you need the CIA world fact book,   and total the number of farm animals across the world as estimated in the book,  compute their average lung sizes and respiration rates and do a calculation.A good veterinary school can help you get the numbers.  Similarly for the 7.3 billion humans on the planet with demographic tables so that differing lung sizes at different ages can be taken into account and get estimates for average respiration rates for each age.  I'm sure a medical university faculty member could help you get them.  Then calculate the total exhaled CO2.  You still need to estimate the CO2 created by the biosphere,  fungi, microbes, and no one knows an accurate number for that its only a guesstimate in the cricketpark.  You still need to then total up the total amount of fossil fuels consumed by every country and then assume complete combustion as a limiting case and estimate the max CO2 emitted by all industrial processes worldwide.  You will pretty soon realize that exhalation CO2 is minute compared to industrial emissions.
As for making fewer babies, I wholeheartedly agree, not only will they get better education and access to more resources,  diseases and famines would be less likely and medical care would be more accessible and comprehensive.  The places where population is still growing are south America, Africa and India and south east asia and former eastern Europe.  All 1st world nations are experiencing a demographic shift where only immigration can replace the workers and free people in society due to decreasing birth rates in these nations.  There are also problems of fertility caused by poor nutrition, pollution and pharmaceutical and street drugs ( [nofollow]) that work to mitigate an exploding population in these countries.
Poverty and lack of education and health care is the major problem. This is intimately connected to Economics.  May I suggest the book 'The End of Poverty' by Jeffrey Sachs,  Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.  Radical Religionism and extreme beliefs leading to insane acts is also a very real problem for birth control, the status of women, and general chaos in the world.  Rationality and emotional self control, while allowing creativity and self expression and freedom from oppression are very important.  Teenage angst will always be with us as well as the revolutions of the next generation.  Old people who think they will be long gone before the poop hits the fan and therefore they think its not their problem and many of them don't care anymore need to think again- for most of them it will happen in their lifetime.  This is a great tragedy.  We need concerned and wise and knowledgeable elders to help guide spaceship earth.  The feminine contribution of nurturing and mothering care is essential compared to the financial cut throat tactics of the banks and razors edge companies.
We desperately need and whistle blowers and international cooperation and identity and mellowness.  We need information technology and the internet to communicate across the globe at the speed of light.  however this can create some hot spots where people can be burned by the microwave intensity from the world.  This needs to be addressed properly to alleviate the intense heat generated sometimes.  Also old people are continually tuning out of the internet culture and can no longer keep up with developments on national, provincial, state , county and citystates and international or global events,  turning their eyes and ears to their immediate surroundings and their local community... no longer a part of the global enterprise.  The space missions do waste a lot of money and effort and intelligence that could be turned with compassion and empathy onto problems of the Earth and sustainability and sustainable communities.  This engine technology comes from the International Space Station thanks to Chris Hadfield's mission, where the Sabatier reaction came to light as a means to get rid of CO2 on the station. There is still a huge divide between rural agrarian and citystate and high finance and currency trading and international debts.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2014 23:05:07 by Chondrally »


Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Alan's point is that if we decrease the human population:

7 Billion --> 3.5 Billion --> 1.75 Billion --> ...

It will be a long harsh process, and many things will change.  But, not only will we reduce the amount of energy eaten by humans and animals (of which essentially 100% is from the plant cycle), but we'll in theory also reduce the amount of vehicles and industry needed to support the population. 

A decrease in "growth" is scary for economists, but it may well also lead to an increase in wealth as resources are spread further.

Unfortunately, an increase in wealth and resource distribution is not always tied with a decrease in consumption.

HOWEVER, at least with fuel, it would be far easier to grow biofuels if we decrease the food requirements of our population.


Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I think your rounded numbers are off by quite a bit.  The amount of CO2 coming out of transportation and coal and gas power plants and industry like steel, etc... dwarfs exhalation CO2 by a long margin. 

The average human uses 1.5 kW of "artificial" energy, of which a bit more then 1 kW comes from fossil fuels. The average human metabolic rate is about 100W, all of which comes from the oxidation of carbon compounds. All warmblooded creatures metabolise at about the same rate (2W/kg) and we maintain about 3 times our own weight of farm animals.

I think the arithmetic is easy.

It will be a long harsh process, and many things will change.
Reduction of the human population would not be "harsh" but would lead to an immediate improvement in the standard of living for everyone. Considering just the UK, roughly half of the population, i.e. those aged 0 - 20 and 60 - 100,  is unproductive. Now introduce a "one child per woman" policy. If in the next 20 years we halved the number of 0 - 20's we would have 12.5% more resources to distribute to everyone else, and by the time that cohort reached reproductive age (roughly 20 - 40) they would be producing half as many children as their parents, so the gain would continue. Using this model the "working fraction" who are paying for the schooling and pensions of the rest, actually increases as the population declines, so everyone is better off.

Countries in which children tend to be economically productive at an earlier age, also have a lower life expectancy, so the benefits would accrue even more rapidly.

At about 10% of the present UK population we could be entirely self sufficient in food and renewable energy.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2014 23:32:31 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance


Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 960
    • View Profile
The decline in births in the U.S., Japan, and other advanced nations has had corrosive economic consequences as the fraction of the population in retirement has risen substantially compared to the fraction still employed. The economic numbers surrounding such things as Social Security in coming decades are scary. There has also been a decline, within the U.S., of the employability of the younger generation due to general downward skidding of social values. Both of these phenomena are among those driving the replacement of native-born workers with those coming (legally and illegally) from other countries, which sounds like a solution except for the fact that in many cases these immigrants come from alien and/or illiterate cultures, the ultimate impact of which on society, when they become  a political force, is a matter of concern (although also a matter of delight to certain political elements). 

And in regard to the foregoing, I would add that it is evidence that analyzing demographic policies solely in terms of energy consumption is seriously misguided.

It might also be pointed out that the heavy-handed approach of birth permits, which is apparently unnecessary in more developed countries, would likely be unnecessary in less-developed countries also, as the state of civilization there, including living standards, rose.  More-prosperous societies tend to have less children per-capita than the less-prosperous.  However, it is a trend we do not want to proceed beyond a certain point, such as is already happening in many Western countries. Of course, more-prosperous countries tend to use more energy also. I think, however, the world is not out of energy options. In theory, carbon recovery through biomass power is one possible solution. As for Chondrally's proposal: I really don't understand it, so will have not comment. Another major possible solution is nuclear power. I refer particularly to next-generation nuclear technology, much safer and less polluting than present technology, such as the thorium reactor. Discussion of the world's energy future really is not complete without seriously looking at this option. 

The long arm of government regulating births is morally repugnant, and, I believe, unnecessary at this point.


Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3931
    • View Profile
Why does any suggestion for using nuclear energy always make the proviso that it must be some revolutionary new form of reactor that will be much safer.
The present generation of reactors are adequately safe causing vastly fewer deaths by accidents and pollution than fossil fuel or hydroelectric plants.


Offline Chondrally

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 71
    • View Profile

The worlds biggest carmaker wants to get rid of gasoline and use water instead.....Toyota news..Bloomberg [nofollow]...

Hydrogen with a grapheme catalyst can work, however there are many pitfalls. It could be made more fuel efficient if they put a 1 square meter solar panel on the roof of the Mirai (the new fuel cell vehicle) and electrolyzed the water exhaust into hydrogen and oxygen making fuel for the vehicle as it runs, greatly improving its fuel efficiency. However, there is not enough water in all of north America to supply the fuel cell vehicles , indeed there is a water shortage in the Midwest in the bread basket looming and in California and Colorado, only desalination and pipelines can save them. Water will become too expensive for ordinary people, and if we took it from the lakes (great lakes and other freshwater sources) it would be an environmental disaster of immense proportions. Hydrogen filling stations are just too dangerous. Hydrogen is a dangerous gas. it leaks and can`t be easily stored even by carbon fibre tanks. it is way lighter than air and way smaller. there would be disasters and explosions. Natural gas or propane is more available and cheaper than water and wouldn`t create the any more of a natural environmental disaster than there already is or only marginally more. It is safer to handle and store and can be made as fuel efficient the fuel cell vehicle if my engine design is followed (see previous articles). Also it would emit no CO2 as well and would regenerate its own fuel too. It would be a cheaper solution as you could still use conventional internal combustion engines and it wouldn`t be very expensive once fully prototyped. Mechanics could understand it easier because it still uses an internal combustion engine so there would be less training for mechanics. Also natural gas filling stations are already popping up across the west of north America because of the switch to natural gas with trucking as it is cheaper and less polluting than diesel even if exhausted to the atmosphere. Propane is already available at many filling stations and my design could be filled up with propane instead of natural gas or also with natural gas. The exact gas is not the determining factor for the engine other than tuning the engine with computer algorithms . it would generate methane with the recycling system and reuse all its water vapor and CO2 to catalyze methane (the main component of natural gas).

The council of canadians will be interested,  Read Blue Gold and Blue Future by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke



Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Water shortage would not be a problem. Per capita use of water in the USA is about 1000 gallons per day, whereas gasoline usage is about 1 gallon per capita per day, and any hydrogen used as fuel will eventually be recycled as atmospheric water - cloud - rain.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance


Offline Chondrally

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 71
    • View Profile
Unless real magic exists,  and I consider real science to be real magic,  not energy out of nothing.  and not a perpetual motion machine.  This process is unlikely to succeed unless energy is put into the cycle.  In this case,  energy is put into the cycle from solar or nuclear or wind or hydropower.
Increased pressure and higher temperature into the CO2 and H2 gases to make it pass over the catalyst and methanize are needed.  Energy equivalent input to the work done by the internal combustion engine and all the associated heat and friction losses must be added.
This is why the process is not really possible.  It sounds complex and mind boggling and wishful thinking.  But at the end of the day, without real magic, it is impossible without the extra energy added to the cycle.

The thermodynamic end states are always the same and there is the same energy potential difference between them.  If the reverse process is 100% efficient,  then it takes the same amount of energy to come back again.  This is very unlikely.  The catalyst increases the likelihood of this happening,  but you need some extra energy to push the process the other way and so there is no free lunch. Time still moves forward except where it naturally moves backward,  like amongst the amish and mennonites and even they move forward at their own pace.  Maybe we should take a page out of their book?

The real secret to this process is that if the pressure and temperature gradients are set right pre and post the catalyst,  the catalyst,  like an enzyme in the human body, provides a source of negative entropy that creates order out of disorder!
« Last Edit: 11/12/2015 11:48:29 by Chondrally »