OT-Energy Sources

9100 · Oct 31, 2017

While not directly relating to chip making, we all use energy doing it and because there is a wide range of disciplines represented here, I have decided to post this.

We get most of our energy from combining the remains of decayed plant life with oxygen from the atmosphere. The fossil fuels, starting with pure hydrogen and combinations with carbon in different ratios range through the various gases, liquids and end with solid coal. They are all the same product, only varying in proportions. Combining two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen produces water, which simply goes into the oceans, etc. Combining one carbon atom with two oxygens unfortunately produces carbon dioxide, a gas, which we have trouble coping with. To make matters worse, we derive more energy from carbon than hydrogen. Combining four hydrogens with two oxygens produces about the same amount of energy as combining two oxygens with one carbon. Natural gas, mostly methane with one carbon and four hydrogens, makes about equal amounts of energy from the two reactions. From there, as the carbon to hydrogen ratio increases, we get more CO2 than water.

People seem to accept that the only way to use these fuels is combining with only oxygen, while in reality there are countless other reactions possible. A familiar one is limestone, calcium carbonate, composed of calcium, carbon and oxygen.

The question- is there a reaction with another element(s) that will produce energy and have a solid waste product instead of a gas? If there is one that can be used economically it would put the coal miners back to work without poisoning the planet.

Bill

crossthread · Oct 31, 2017

Hand warmers?

TDegenhart · Oct 31, 2017

Nuclear fuel.

Tom

DDoug · Oct 31, 2017

TDegenhart said:
Nuclear fuel.

Tom

Direct conversion nuclear:
Direct energy conversion - Wikipedia

dgfoster · Oct 31, 2017

TDegenhart said:
Nuclear fuel.

Tom

With Thorium being potentially the safest. Lots of international interest in thorium reactors. No plutonium produced by thorium reactors and no run aways. Worth reading about.

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia

Denis

Limy Sami · Oct 31, 2017

What about energy for the poor bloody machinists?

DDoug · Oct 31, 2017

Limy Sami said:
What about energy for the poor bloody machinists?

Beerth....

JST · Oct 31, 2017

9100 said:
.....

The question- is there a reaction with another element(s) that will produce energy and have a solid waste product instead of a gas? If there is one that can be used economically it would put the coal miners back to work without poisoning the planet.

Bill

Generally, the energy derived from a reaction is dependent on the difficulty of breaking apart the reaction product, and recombining the parts as the original compounds.

It is a bit like getting energy from dropping weights into a mine shaft. You have to find more weights all the time, plus you end up filling the mine shaft, so that you must dig it out before you can get any more energy that way. The only way you can win is to dig another mine shaft, and hope that the dirt you lift up is lighter (less dense) than the weights you are dropping down, so there is energy left over after you lift out the dirt.

Oxygen is a goodie, because it "grabs hard", meaning that reversing the reaction takes a lot of energy, compared to other potential reactions.

From that, you get the idea that most other reactions will give up less energy per mol. So the "efficiency" in terms of energy per ton (tonne, whatever) is probably going to be less for anything else.

Then also, oxygen is readily available, while most other potential reactants have to be found, and broken out of whatever molecules they are in by adding energy. That subtracts further from the available net energy output.

It's tough to beat a reaction where some of the material you can just "pick up off the ground" (coal, oil) and react with another substance that is universally available in the air. Everything else starts to look unacceptably expensive by comparison.

steve45 · Oct 31, 2017

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is NOT responsible for the non-existent global warming, the coming ice age, climate change, or whatever calamity the environmentalists are promoting this week.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, finally saw the light. He is now trying to get the word out that this CO2 nonsense is just that--nonsense.

Read about it here: CO2 Coalition | Learn the facts about the vital role that CO2 plays in our environment

Monarchist · Oct 31, 2017

9100 said:
While not directly relating to chip making, we all use energy doing it and because there is a wide range of disciplines represented here, I have decided to post this.

We get most of our energy from combining the remains of decayed plant life with oxygen from the atmosphere. The fossil fuels, starting with pure hydrogen and combinations with carbon in different ratios range through the various gases, liquids and end with solid coal. They are all the same product, only varying in proportions. Combining two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen produces water, which simply goes into the oceans, etc. Combining one carbon atom with two oxygens unfortunately produces carbon dioxide, a gas, which we have trouble coping with. To make matters worse, we derive more energy from carbon than hydrogen. Combining four hydrogens with two oxygens produces about the same amount of energy as combining two oxygens with one carbon. Natural gas, mostly methane with one carbon and four hydrogens, makes about equal amounts of energy from the two reactions. From there, as the carbon to hydrogen ratio increases, we get more CO2 than water.

People seem to accept that the only way to use these fuels is combining with only oxygen, while in reality there are countless other reactions possible. A familiar one is limestone, calcium carbonate, composed of calcium, carbon and oxygen.

The question- is there a reaction with another element(s) that will produce energy and have a solid waste product instead of a gas? If there is one that can be used economically it would put the coal miners back to work without poisoning the planet.

Bill

Nano-tech research has already discovered how to break-down Oxygen & Hydrogen from water (to be "burned", again, and locally, rather than with a vexatious storage and transport challenge). Also how to duplicate photosynthesis, putting CO2 back to work, locally.

Both will take time to move from lab to mass application, but as both were derived from processes already in use in NATURE that we simply had not grokked the finer details of, both are affordable, scalable, and efficient, so should come to pass before too much longer.

Coal? It can be, and in the fullness of time may very well be.. used for OTHER than its fuel value. That will take longer, as the mining of it is still a dirty, nasty business, regardless of what one does with it after extraction.

RC Mech · Oct 31, 2017

Figure out a reaction pathway to make red mud useful. It's what makes aluminium production hideously unfriendly to the environment. 2 tons of toxic sludge for every ton of Al produced.

JST · Oct 31, 2017

Monarchist said:
Nano-tech research has already discovered how to break-down Oxygen & Hydrogen from water (to be "burned", again, and locally, rather than with a vexatious storage and transport challenge). Also how to duplicate photosynthesis, putting CO2 back to work, locally.

Both will take time to move from lab to mass application, but as both were derived from processes already in use in NATURE that we simply had not grokked the finer details of, both are affordable, scalable, and efficient, so should come to pass before too much longer.

Coal? It can be, and in the fullness of time may very well be.. used for OTHER than its fuel value. That will take longer, as the mining of it is still a dirty, nasty business, regardless of what one does with it after extraction.

The only way to do that breaking-down is to add energy. Just as much as you got originally, plus losses.

So, the result is another form of solar energy.

I'm all for it, actually, we have a lot of fuel burning equipment, and all of it CAN NOT be made electric. Electric cars are still a bad joke, and will be for the foreseeable. Fuel can be stored and shipped, we already have everything set up to do that. And it will ALWAYS beat any sort of battery as for storage per unit volume.

If fuel can be made using solar for energy, then it really does not matter if there is any truth to global warming, it still makes sense, since fossil fuel will run out eventually, even nuclear power fuel. When the sun wears out, we are unlikely to be interested.

Rigor · Oct 31, 2017

steve45 said:
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is NOT responsible for the non-existent global warming, the coming ice age, climate change, or whatever calamity the environmentalists are promoting this week.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, finally saw the light. He is now trying to get the word out that this CO2 nonsense is just that--nonsense.

Read about it here: CO2 Coalition | Learn the facts about the vital role that CO2 plays in our environment

Finally someone got the balls to say it. Technically oxygen is a by product of life. It is the pollutant in a carbon based universe. When they search for life on other goldie locks planet they look for signs of oxygen. Besides everything on this planet can tolerate moderate levels of carbon dioxide.
Global warming is a scam. I cant wait for the day when -30 is a thing of the past. Climate change is beyond our control and has everything to do with our god the sun. With out it we die. Adapt or face extermination.

Jashley73 · Oct 31, 2017

Is there an energy source that produces a solid waste by product?

I remember seeing these things out in the country one time. Fueled from common crop grains & grassy plants. Through natural bio-chemical reactions, they produced quite a lot of mechanical energy, and a solid waste by-product. The nice thing is that the by-product would bio-decay, and convert it's minerals back into the soil - basically re-fueling the soil for more crop growth. Almost like a perpetual energy system - pretty neat actually.

There was some other checmical/gaseous exchange as well. I think they took in Oxygen, and output Carbon-Dioxide.

I think they called them horses, mules, or oxen maybe? Something like that - I can't remember...

OK, all kidding aside, it's actually pretty fascinating really.

Monarchist · Oct 31, 2017

JST said:
The only way to do that breaking-down is to add energy. Just as much as you got originally, plus losses.

Historically, yes. Entropy-wise, yes.

The "trick" is.. that the close proximity - I mean atomically close - of outer-valences of certain elements makes the "leap" easier. Nano-particles of Nickel. Nano particles of Manganese, to name but two new ones. New counterparts to Carbon's "Graphene" being found in OTHER elements for another.

Now - take Silver as an OLD example. Known since ancient times that food didn't spoil as rapidly if stored in Silver containers. In-use to day as catalytic sanitizers for washing machines and such. Only NOW we know HOW and WHY it works.

A Silver atom's outer valence just happens to "fit" O2 molecules in just the right way that O2 in contact with Silver loses its not-so-strong grip on its sibling "O" atom. That splits O2 apart into two "O" or nascent Oxygen atoms. Which no longer "fit" the Silver, so motor off in search of a victim. Bacteria get hammered - not by the SILVER. By the nascent Oxygen it "enabled".

Cryo-electron microscopy just reported out this week the first ACCURATE look at dendritic structures that form in battery materials. Longer-lived, better, denser, and safer batteries are expected to follow.

"Nano" is an area where mankind is learning a LOT that we only thought we knew, and the payoffs should be huge - alternative energy improvements among those.

steamandsteel · Oct 31, 2017

Limy Sami said:
What about energy for the poor bloody machinists?

Steam. Definitely partial to steam power, but is a virtually limitless source of energy. Cut down trees, feed the scraps into your traction engine, use that to run a buzz saw to create timbers, build a barn, put machinery in it. Power a dynamo off your engine, produce electricity of any phase / amount with a sizable motor/dynamo. Buy a few 55gal drums of gear and steam oil, and a few cases of grease, and you're set for years.

Cut down trees, coppicing where applicable, feed your machines. If you're lucky enough to live on or near a coal field, there you've got a limitless source of power for you small operations.

Nuclear and other alternatives are great and all, but those are high tech, expensive, and not achievable for the average Joe Homeowner.

Monarchist · Oct 31, 2017

steamandsteel said:
Steam. Definitely partial to steam power, but is a virtually limitless source of energy. Cut down trees, feed the scraps into your traction engine, use that to run a buzz saw to create timbers, build a barn, put machinery in it. Power a dynamo off your engine, produce electricity of any phase / amount with a sizable motor/dynamo. Buy a few 55gal drums of gear and steam oil, and a few cases of grease, and you're set for years.

Cut down trees, coppicing where applicable, feed your machines. If you're lucky enough to live on or near a coal field, there you've got a limitless source of power for you small operations.

Nuclear and other alternatives are great and all, but those are high tech, expensive, and not achievable for the average Joe Homeowner.

"Steam" is but a transfer mechanism. It is not a power SOURCE.

Live off WOOD, and our family HAS DONE, and you will soon tire of it and seek something less labour-intensive.

PeteM · Oct 31, 2017

steve45 said:
. . . non-existent global warming . . .

Seems that Milacron might want to add pop-up ads for thermometers? Must be a shortage of them in oil country? *

Lacking one, just scroll down to "Global temperture rise" and read about the warmest years on record: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

That article is a bit out of date, though, what with 2017 and its various storms, fires, and, yeah, warm temperatures: Globe had 2nd warmest year to date and 3rd warmest June on record | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

True enough that CO2 has its benefits. Kind of like water, though, you don't want to be drowning in it. Either way, it's simply a fact that the globe has been warming.

Anyhow, the OP asked a chemistry question. There's a ton of interesting chemistry going on with battery technology. One day we might get 'em both large and cheap enough to be a buffer for other energy sources. Oxidation and reduction reactions there, too.

*Everyone knows that Austin doesn't count: Austin continues its hottest year on record | KXAN.com

Adwcali · Oct 31, 2017

steve45 said:
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is NOT responsible for the non-existent global warming, the coming ice age, climate change, or whatever calamity the environmentalists are promoting this week.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, finally saw the light. He is now trying to get the word out that this CO2 nonsense is just that--nonsense.

Read about it here: CO2 Coalition | Learn the facts about the vital role that CO2 plays in our environment

Read that article last week. Very interesting. Science and ideology just don't mix.

Rigor · Oct 31, 2017

Adwcali said:
Read that article last week. Very interesting. Science and ideology just don't mix.

The thing is , there's no money to be made if change isn't necessary. All of it is bullshit. What do we really know about climate and its changes when we've only kept records of it for the last 250 yrs. In the grand scope of time since the big bang, 250 years is nothing more than a flash.

Now were going way off topic.

OT-Energy Sources

Diamond

Titanium

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Banned

Titanium

Diamond

Aluminum

Diamond

Diamond

Aluminum

Banned

Similar threads