Mitt Romney (R) endorses Hitler’s energy policy!!1! 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreenEngineer Posted 7:08 am
   20 Apr 2007

   No comment possibleYou do realize, I hope, that you have pre=emptively killed the discussion by violating Godwin's Law. :)

   Permalink

2. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 7:19 am
   20 Apr 2007

   Oddly thoughIf no Replican stations pick this up.
   
   It's likely that it might not hurt him at all.
   Fischer Troph is the best way to go if you're going to do liquid fuels.
   But the real question is why we would want to do liquids at all.
   Since you can get 10x more electric energy off of a biomass solid.

   Permalink

3. 

   Gar Lipow Posted 8:14 am
   20 Apr 2007

   Why li quid fuelsBecause sometimes you can run things on liquid or gas fuels you can't run on electricity.

   Permalink

4. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 8:30 am
   20 Apr 2007

   YeahBut it's not like we have a shortage of natural gas or oil.  
   It's merely a price issue, not a supply issue.
   So why would we want to subsidize the continued use of ineffecient technologies?
   Wouldn't "sooner the better" we shift away from liquid/gas fuels be best?
   Or at very least promote fuel effeciency in their use by creating a market scarcity.

   Permalink

5. 

   caniscandida Posted 9:00 am
   20 Apr 2007

   Godwin's LawGosh, I was hoping we would get going a good rolicking discussion of Saint Godwin of Stavelot, and his cutting-edge-at-the-time disciplinary procedures with novices ...
   Actually, by "pre-emptively" bringing in the "Hitler had his good points too, you know" business, DR is unfairly skewing the data in favor of the validity, or rather of the importance, of Godwin's Law.
   One could say that the longer a thread continues, the greater is the chance of there being mentioned a small, white, fluffy mammal with a black nose; or, Gustave Flaubert's tracking syphilis through the brothels of the Middle East; or, polygamy in history.  It is merely a cultural artefact that WWII, the Nazis, the Holocaust and Hitler tend to pop up sooner than those other subjects.
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

6. 

   Nucbuddy Posted 11:00 am
   20 Apr 2007

   Specific energy of biomass vs liquid fuelsGreyFlcn wrote: the real question is why we would want to do liquids at all [...] Since you can get 10x more electric energy off of a biomass solid.
   Assuming a barrel of crude oil weighs about 300 pounds, crude oil seems to have more than twice the specific-heat-energy of "bone dry" wood fuel.
   
   teesforest.org.uk/R&Renergy_conv.htm
   How do you figure that biomass can provide 11-times the electrical energy that liquid fuels can?
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 2:40 pm
   20 Apr 2007

   re: NucBuddyHow do you figure that biomass can provide 10-times the electrical energy that liquid fuels can?
   Given an equal ammount of feedstock inputs.
   Biomass solids can provide 10x more energy than Biomass liquids.
   Direct Carbon Fuel Cell can reach as high as 72% net energy utilization from biomass.
   
   (90% efficient torrification process.
   
   80% efficient direct carbon fuel cell)
   Which is a far cry from 7.2% conversion with ethanol.
   
   (38% efficient Fischer Trophe process
   
   20% efficient gasoline generator)
   Although for the purposes of arguement lets assume it's a diesel generator, giving it 16.34% conversion effeciency.  Which would make it "only" 441% better than turning the fuel into a liquid.

   Permalink

8. 

   Nucbuddy Posted 3:05 pm
   21 Apr 2007

   Power densities of liquid vs. solid fuelsGreyFlcn wrote: 80% efficient direct carbon fuel cell
   Where did you find that information. Wikipedia quotes a 70% system efficiency for direct carbon fuel cells.
   
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Types_of_fuel_cells
   After that, it says, "they can have very high efficiencies in converting chemical energy to electrical energy, especially when they are operated at low power density...."
   Liquid fuels are usually employed where high power densities are valuable. Why would you replace a liquid fuel with a fuel that has low power density?
   
   

   Permalink

9. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 4:37 pm
   21 Apr 2007

   WikipediaThats because you are reading Wikipedia.
   It's advertised as 70-80% effecient, but it's actually 80%
   The reason for the downgrade is that it loses a portion of it's energy due to the need to preform "mild pyrolysis" on it's fuels before it's used.
   Aka torrification.  (Which is 90% effecient)
   Hence why you end up with 72% system efficiency.
   _
   The best fuel to use with it is biomass, since biomass charcoal is a more stable form of coal.
   It's also can be much more uniform in structure than coal.
   It also lacks all the impurities, like sulfur, and mercury.
   _
   EngineerPoet covers it pretty well in this really long blog post.
   Scroll down to the heading titled:
   
   Okay, what do you do with it?

   Permalink

10. 

    GreyFlcn Posted 4:53 pm
    21 Apr 2007

    Why is Density important?re: NucBuddy
    
    --After that, it says, "they can have very high efficiencies in converting chemical energy to electrical energy, especially when they are operated at low power density...."
    
    Liquid fuels are usually employed where high power densities are valuable. Why would you replace a liquid fuel with a fuel that has low power density?--
    Because electricity generation doesn't need to be mobile in the slightest.  (And usually isn't)
    NanoLithium Batteries and UltraCapacitors.  Now THAT is where you get your density.
    Both technologies are approaching densities which are surpassing liquid fuels in both density, and "refueling" speeds.

    Permalink