By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Petrol produced from air and water

Cobretti2 on 29 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
Also worth noting the whole "The desert can power the whole country" argument isn't actually true.

It could create enough power to power the whole country... if the whole country was right next to it.

In reality though....

A) Transference. The longer power goes on the power lines, the more energy is lost.

B) Storage. It's a lot harder to store solar energy.. and it's very inefficient at the moment.

C) Peak usage times. These are usually when the sun isn't shining. Combine this with the storage and transference issues and.....

D) Stupidity of central power location. Would we really want all the power for the country being supplied by one area, or even the majority of it?

Essentially one terrorist attack, or hell, a bored 6th grader who's good at hacking could essentially take out the entire country for a while and cause HUGE problems.


I could go on... but i mean, That alone should be pretty decent to start.


All valid points.Soar farms and even wind farms cannot be used to replace brown energy as they rely on natures elements too operate. If hydro generation is vulnerable during long drought seasons.

When people at work ask me about if they should add solar to their house. I always tell them don't expect to profit from it but rather reduce your need for the grid to supply you 100% load. With the way power prices are risiing in Australia and now the carbon tax, and the cost of solar dropping, it makes it viable cost savining, at least during the summer period.



 

 

Around the Network
TeddostheFireKing on 29 October 2012
Porcupine_I said:
Cobretti2 said:

At the time this was a pretty interesting report, however since then Haven't really herd much.

 

Fire from Salt Water


The late John Kanzius found a way to burn salt water with the same radio wave machine he is using to kill cancer cells.

Kanzius was testing his external radio-wave generator to see if it could desalinate salt water, and the water ignited. A university chemist determined that the process is generating hydrogen, which can be burned as fuel.

While the phenomenon is interesting, it is not yet practical for energy generation as long as more energy is consumed by the radio frequency device than is produced for burning. Efficiency-wise, they started at around 76 percent of Faraday's theoretical limit. (Other Hydrogen-from-Water methods, such as the one being pursued by Bob Boyce, are approaching 7x Faraday). They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency, which would mean that the system is somehow harnessing environmental energy such as from the zero point or some other yet-to-be discovered phenomenon.

Another problem to be overcome from burning salt water is the liberation of toxic chlorine (from the Cl of NaCl/salt).

Kanzius said if someone wants to buy up the rights to the technology, that would be fine. He would use the funds to finance his quest to cure cancer.

He passed away Feb. 19, 2009.

 http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves


I'm not totally convinced at the article in the OP, but this youtube video has certainly got me interested. Has there been any further developments in this area recently?



Kasz216 on 30 October 2012
Cobretti2 said:
Kasz216 said:
Also worth noting the whole "The desert can power the whole country" argument isn't actually true.

It could create enough power to power the whole country... if the whole country was right next to it.

In reality though....

A) Transference. The longer power goes on the power lines, the more energy is lost.

B) Storage. It's a lot harder to store solar energy.. and it's very inefficient at the moment.

C) Peak usage times. These are usually when the sun isn't shining. Combine this with the storage and transference issues and.....

D) Stupidity of central power location. Would we really want all the power for the country being supplied by one area, or even the majority of it?

Essentially one terrorist attack, or hell, a bored 6th grader who's good at hacking could essentially take out the entire country for a while and cause HUGE problems.


I could go on... but i mean, That alone should be pretty decent to start.


All valid points.Soar farms and even wind farms cannot be used to replace brown energy as they rely on natures elements too operate. If hydro generation is vulnerable during long drought seasons.

When people at work ask me about if they should add solar to their house. I always tell them don't expect to profit from it but rather reduce your need for the grid to supply you 100% load. With the way power prices are risiing in Australia and now the carbon tax, and the cost of solar dropping, it makes it viable cost savining, at least during the summer period.

Yeah, I mean... that's not to say it isn't useful.

It's just worth noting that green energy as of current is too unreliable for full on mainstream use.

The truth is, I don't believe there is one green power plant that independently runs a power grid.(maybe one or two hydro plants?)  They either rely on other power plants, or have traditional generators in addition to the green ones to handle times when the green energy just can't produce.

Really, if you want to be throwing green energy subsidies anywhere... it shouldn't actually be at green energy....

but as research grants for battery technology.  Giant industrial batteries.

 

 

The future of green power I think is only viable in the short term with a few massive government owned green power plants that collects power in places just like the Nevada desert and near full capacity all day every day.  Then ships batteries out to local battery powered plants.who obviously keep extra batteries in storage for when problems happen with the power plant.

 

With decomissioned coal or other fossil fuel plants sitting around in waiting to fill in whenever there is a problem with the electric batter supply.

 

Why government owned?  Largely because the lack of suitable places would be prone to a monopoly otherwise.



Player2 on 30 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
 

Yeah, I mean... that's not to say it isn't useful.

It's just worth noting that green energy as of current is too unreliable for full on mainstream use.

The truth is, I don't believe there is one green power plant that independently runs a power grid.(maybe one or two hydro plants?)  They either rely on other power plants, or have traditional generators in addition to the green ones to handle times when the green energy just can't produce.

Really, if you want to be throwing green energy subsidies anywhere... it shouldn't actually be at green energy....

but as research grants for battery technology.  Giant industrial batteries.

 

 

The future of green power I think is only viable in the short term with a few massive government owned green power plants that collects power in places just like the Nevada desert and near full capacity all day every day.  Then ships batteries out to local battery powered plants.who obviously keep extra batteries in storage for when problems happen with the power plant.

 

With decomissioned coal or other fossil fuel plants sitting around in waiting to fill in whenever there is a problem with the electric batter supply.

 

Why government owned?  Largely because the lack of suitable places would be prone to a monopoly otherwise.

If we find a cheap and effective way to store energy, we should use it to store energy from wind power plants, as they generate much more electricity than solar power plants (and hydro plants) right now, but their biggest drawback is the lack of control over their production.

Superconductivity would fix the storage and transport problems, but we don't know when that will happen. And I don't think we can find a good enough chemical-based battery.

 

Right now we can create light tubes and other elements required in buildings that are capable of generating electricity, but it does increase the price of the building. However, in the long run (can't remember the number of years right now) it's worth the money. With some programs it is possible to redirect that electricity to the power grid when it isn't used inside the house (less need for transport, and can reduce the electric bill of the owner even more). I think it is better (and cheaper) than putting an add-on in the roof.

However, it's obvious that electric companies won't be interested in this.



Cobretti2 on 30 October 2012
Kasz216 said:

Yeah, I mean... that's not to say it isn't useful.

It's just worth noting that green energy as of current is too unreliable for full on mainstream use.

The truth is, I don't believe there is one green power plant that independently runs a power grid.(maybe one or two hydro plants?)  They either rely on other power plants, or have traditional generators in addition to the green ones to handle times when the green energy just can't produce.

Really, if you want to be throwing green energy subsidies anywhere... it shouldn't actually be at green energy....

but as research grants for battery technology.  Giant industrial batteries.

 

 

The future of green power I think is only viable in the short term with a few massive government owned green power plants that collects power in places just like the Nevada desert and near full capacity all day every day.  Then ships batteries out to local battery powered plants.who obviously keep extra batteries in storage for when problems happen with the power plant.

 

With decomissioned coal or other fossil fuel plants sitting around in waiting to fill in whenever there is a problem with the electric batter supply.

 

Why government owned?  Largely because the lack of suitable places would be prone to a monopoly otherwise.


My state in Australia used to run 100% on hydro power plants.  I think the total generator capacity is like 1600MW.

They build this DC underwater power cable to transport the power to sell to the national electricity market. however ironically enough because from around 2000-2008 it was drought years, the aggregate lake levels got to as low as 30%, so in the end my state ended up importing coal energy over the cable instead of exporting 24/7 as was the plan.

ATM in the last 2-3 years we have had lots of rain, so lake levels on aggregate are probably around the 85% mark.

Essentially nature impacts us (the whole el nino and la nina ocean temperature scenario). From memory I think scientists have noticed that Australia's drought seasons are actually getting longer.

 

ATM here we have a lot of windfarms going up and polititians getting excited about how AUS will meet its reduced carbon emission targets etc.. however what they don't realise that for every windfarm there is spinning reserve required on standby eithe coal or gas incase the wind stops blowing.

 

This year we have been introduced to a new carbon tax. I don't think anyone really has an exact clue what it will do lol. However some of that money will go into renewable energy research. So hopefully better storage and other renewable generation can be created that does not rely on nature.

 

You raised an interesting point about government owned. Ironically enough, our state governments are selling up all power assets and essentially created an private electricity market, which is meant to create competition and reduce prices. Originally a lot of american power companies purchased these assets however they quickly sold the assets once they aged and needed repairing. ATM our electricty assets are probably 70% owend by asian power companies.



 

 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 30 October 2012
Cobretti2 said:
Kasz216 said:

You raised an interesting point about government owned. Ironically enough, our state governments are selling up all power assets and essentially created an private electricity market, which is meant to create competition and reduce prices. Originally a lot of american power companies purchased these assets however they quickly sold the assets once they aged and needed repairing. ATM our electricty assets are probably 70% owend by asian power companies.

Yeah, i'm not a big fan of privately owned power unless regulated very well.

The structural advantages are too much to make a truley free market.