Searching \ for '[OT]: Willow tree biomass - multiplies input energ' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/ios.htm?key=input
Search entire site for: 'Willow tree biomass - multiplies input energ'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Willow tree biomass - multiplies input energ'
2003\11\14@184337 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>After accounting for all the energy used over a 4 year period to
>maintain and grow the willow trees, and then the energy required
>to harvest, convert, and transport the energy, you can get about
>11 times more energy out than you put it.

Not true if one accounts for different forms of energy.  In order to know if
it's "sustainable", one must do an "eMergy" analysis (see H.T. Odum).

For example, when the fossil energy is depleted, one would have to either
manufacture fossil fuel (or a substitute) from willow trees.

Jay

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\14@192245 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
yajyaj wrote:

>For example, when the fossil energy is depleted, one would have to either
>manufacture fossil fuel (or a substitute) from willow trees.
>
>
>
Also known as bootstrapping.  Nuclear power plants, for instance, needed
a great deal of energy to start up, but afterwards could provide their
own.  C compilers were first written in assembly and other languages,
then they started compiling themselves.

I'm sure that one could find a way to make the bio-power plant self
supporting, and I'm sure it'll be a little less efficient.  However, it
works well as a multiplier now (in theory).

-Adam

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\14@224514 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>-Adam:
>
>Also known as bootstrapping.  Nuclear power plants, for instance,
>needed a great deal of energy to start up, but afterwards could
>
>I'm sure that one could find a way to make the bio-power plant self
>supporting, and I'm sure it'll be a little less efficient.  However,
>it works well as a multiplier now (in theory).

Also known as faith.

Jay

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\15@012946 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >Also known as bootstrapping.  Nuclear power plants, for instance,
> >needed a great deal of energy to start up, but afterwards could
> >
> >I'm sure that one could find a way to make the bio-power plant self
> >supporting, and I'm sure it'll be a little less efficient.  However,
> >it works well as a multiplier now (in theory).
>
> Also known as faith.

Absolutely not.
It's applied science, otherwise known as engineering.
Mankind (and womankind too) has known since time immemorial that using
natural energy accumulators is an energy efficient way to obtain energy.
Which is what is being proposed with Willow biomass. Other traditional means
have included eating plants (photosynthesis products provided for you),
eating animals (concentration of photosynthesis products from plants or
other animals done for you, water wheels / hydro power, coal, wood burning,
swamp gas or (Alice's specialty) garbage  gas utilisation, coal/oil/gas
powered thermal power stations and nuclear energy. ALL these "energy
sources" are provided ultimately by stars. Thos that involve elements with
atomic numbers below that of iron probably involve our own local star Sol.
Those that involve elements with atomic numbers above that of iron probably
get assistance from past Super novae. It's approximately impossible to get
any energy source that can't be traced back to star power. (A dangerous
assertion :-) ).

Why Willow biomass utilisation would not be conceived as a possible means of
utilising solar energy I can't imagine.


       Russell McMahon


___________________________________________________________
If we have already accidentally created an unexpectedly lethal virus by
single
gene transfer, why should we believe that it might not happen again, once
or on numerous occasions in future, but in less controlled circumstances?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\11\15@033911 by James Cameron

flavicon
face
Well, there's both faith in-science, and faith-in science.  Depending on
where you put the parentheses.

I have designed a sort of solar battery, a large (200m diameter) slow
moving conveyor belt, which is watered at intervals, but otherwise
exposed to the sun.  Lots of silicates on the belt, with some biological
waste (poo), and a seeding unit that slowly drops seeds onto it.

At the energy transfer unit, the grass is sliced off and moved into a
drying belt, which eventually feeds it to run the kitchen oven or some
other use.

I'd imagined PICs very much involved.  ;-)  It's still not prototyped.

G'day Russell, long time no see.

--
James Cameron    spam_OUTquozlTakeThisOuTspamus.netrek.org     http://quozl.netrek.org/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\11\15@112840 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Absolutely not.
> It's applied science, otherwise known as engineering.
> Mankind (and womankind too) has known since time immemorial that using
> natural energy accumulators is an energy efficient way to obtain energy.
> Which is what is being proposed with Willow biomass. Other
> traditional means
> have included eating plants (photosynthesis products provided for you),
> eating animals (concentration of photosynthesis products from plants or
> other animals done for you, water wheels / hydro power, coal,
> wood burning,
> swamp gas or (Alice's specialty) garbage  gas utilisation, coal/oil/gas
> powered thermal power stations and nuclear energy. ALL these "energy
> sources" are provided ultimately by stars. Thos that involve elements with
> atomic numbers below that of iron probably involve our own local star Sol.
> Those that involve elements with atomic numbers above that of
> iron probably
> get assistance from past Super novae. It's approximately impossible to get
> any energy source that can't be traced back to star power. (A dangerous
> assertion :-) ).

       That's currently true, but if we ever manage to get fusion working with
Hydrogen that will be a source of energy NOT derived from stars. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\11\15@154228 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:

>        That's currently true, but if we ever manage to get fusion working with
>Hydrogen that will be a source of energy NOT derived from stars. TTYL
>
>
>
Yep.  Instead of getting our energy from a star, we'll be emulating one.

-Adam

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\11\15@161212 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>> Also known as faith.
>
>Absolutely not.
>It's applied science, otherwise known as engineering.
>
>Mankind (and womankind too) has known since time immemorial

Yours isn't "applied science", it's "faith-based science".  "Mankind has
known since time immemorial..."  A quote from Oral Roberts?

Where are your numbers for willow-powered aircraft?  What is your model for
H. Sapiens?

The truth of the matter is (although it's extremely rare to find anyone who
is interested in truth) is that when fossil fuel "sources" pass peak and
decline into "sinks", this society is history.

The truth of the matter is that you are simply following your genetic
program like any other animal.  You pick your political agenda exactily like
someone would pick a baseball team (tribal identification), and then you
assume-away all the problems.

You claim to be an "engineer"?  Fill in the blanks!  (But please! Leave your
"faith" at home.)

Jay

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\11\15@171610 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Saturday, Nov 15, 2003, at 13:07 US/Pacific, yajyaj wrote:
>
> Where are your numbers for willow-powered aircraft?  What is your
> model for
> H. Sapiens?
>
> The truth of the matter is (although it's extremely rare to find
> anyone who
> is interested in truth) is that when fossil fuel "sources" pass peak
> and
> decline into "sinks", this society is history.
>
It's a relatively simple matter to convert biomass fuel sources to
forms more
compatible with fossil-fueled society.  Remember the turkey-guts
convesion
plant?  Wood yields methanol, other biomass gives you methane and/or
ethanol (probably a bit more efficiently.)  At the moment, it is not
ecconomicly
efficient to do this, but that's not a scientific issue...
(It's still possible that "this society is history" in a world with the
resulting increased energy costs, of course...)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\11\15@211931 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>It's a relatively simple matter to convert biomass fuel
>sources to forms more compatible with fossil-fueled society.
> Remember the turkey-guts convesion plant?  Wood yields methanol,

You are overlooking the reason this discussion occurs at all: energy source.
If your Rube Goldberg manufacturing process consumes more energy than it
produces, then it's not an energy source -- it's a "sink".

Most of these calculations were done by Odum and his students.
A BTU of sunlight is fundamentally different than a BTU of fossil fuel.
Directly and indirectly it takes about 1,000 kilocal of sunlight to make a
kilocalorie of organic matter, about 40,000 to make a kilocalorie of coal,
about 170,000 kilocal to make a kilocalorie of electrical power, and 10
million or more to support a typical kilocalorie of human service. So when
renewable energy systems are evaluated, both inputs and outputs must be
converted to solar eMjoules (or "sej") and compared. (There are ten
different sets of equations to convert energy to sej:
http://dieoff.com/emergy.pdf ) The difference between the sej input and sej
output is known as the "net sej".
What's the bottom line?  The USA is presently using fossil fuels more than
100 times greater than the total absorption of solar radiation across the
entire USA!

Jay

[ ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making
by Howard T. Odum; Wiley, 1996
;http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471114421 ]
From page 314, we find that in 1993 total USA fuel use was 4.78 x 10e24 sej
(increasing about 2% per year ever since). From page 187 we find that total
net solar radiation absorption for Alaska and the lower 48 was 4.48 x 10e22
sej. In other words, the USA is presently using fossil fuels more than 100
times greater than the total absorption of solar radiation across the entire
USA!

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\11\15@232027 by Mike Singer

picon face
Yajyaj wrote:
> In other words, the USA is presently using fossil fuels more than
> 100 times greater than the total absorption of solar radiation across
> the entire USA!

"100 times greater than the total absorption of solar radiation " it's a
bit
overkill even for the USA. You'll cook out the country.
Imaging Death Valley at noon but with solar radiation, say, 10 times
more.

Mike.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\11\16@015955 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Imaging Death Valley at noon but with solar radiation, say, 10 times
> more.

I visited it's lowest point ('Badwater') at about 3pm on a day in mid summer
this year. 55 C plus and a very impressive place to visit, briefly.

10 times more energy incidence would have been 'interesting'. Probably have
ended up more like Phoenix. I'd never realised where Phoenix got it's name
until I went there :-)




       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@020202 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>That's currently true, but if we ever manage to get fusion working with
>Hydrogen that will be a source of energy NOT derived from stars. TTYL

If you can do it with pure Hydrogen, yes.

But otherwise then probably no - because:

It's highly likely the "fuel" used for fusion reactors will be Helium 3 plus
Deuterium. Deuterium is easy to come by locally (and we won't even start to
ask whether a star made it :-) ) BUT Helium 3 availability is measured in
tens of kg and you have to go talk to the nuclear weapons makers to get it.
If we ever really get going with fusion reactors planet wide we will
probably want a few tens of kg per year. Fortunately the odd million tons or
so of the stuff is *believed* to be lying around in the open just waiting
for people to come along and strip mine it. And it's only 250,000 km away.
You can see where it is with the naked eye on any well moonlit night.

I haven't read jays references so I don't know if fusion energy sources were
included in their figuring. Jay may wish to figure out how many sej of the
stuff are lying about on the lunar surface waiting to be mined. I suspect
that even Heath Robinson (or was that Rube Goldberg?) would not have too
much difficulty dreaming up actually practical and workable schemes to
extract, return and utilise this material. IF it really exists (have faith)
and IF we are able to use it (more faith) then one use will be the
production of Hydrogen by electrolysis or otherwise. Given suitable storage
systems (more faith)(metal hydrides are looking very promising) then
Hydrogen is an excellent fossil fuel replacement. Conversion of Turkey guts
et al to oil equivalent is another possible use :-).

Here's a site which outlines what's *believed* to be involved.

    http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

A certain amount of faith and a certain amount of engineering are going to
be required if this is ever going to be a reality. If Jay is correct about
earth sinking back into decline after the depletion of fossil fuels, then th
ere is going to be extremely substantial incentive to exploit this energy
source. Note in passing that the Oil Shales have immensely more energy
content in them than all traditional oil reserves have or had. They can be
(and probably need to be) strip mined. Recovery is very energy intensive
relative to traditional oil recovery systems).

Helium 3 does look like a possible "way ahead". But, as the putative Helium
3 in the lunar surface is deposited there by the solar wind, it's still a
star based energy source :-)


       Russell McMahon

___________________________________________________________
If we have already accidentally created an unexpectedly lethal virus by
single
gene transfer, why should we believe that it might not happen again, once
or on numerous occasions in future, but in less controlled circumstances?

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@022312 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> probably want a few tens of kg

that should have been tens of tons (or tonnes)

> per year. Fortunately the odd million tons or
> so of the stuff is *believed* to be lying around in the open just waiting
> for people to come along and strip mine it. And it's only 250,000 km away.
> You can see where it is with the naked eye on any well moonlit night.

Truth be known it would be hundreds of tons per year. Still highly
achievable if achievable at all. Why do we want to go back to the moon ....
? Maybe President Bush's advisors have been listening to Jay's prophets of
doom :-). The well researched and funded club of Rome (1970s) were
magnificently wrong in their "end of the world as we know it" scenarios.
That doesn't make other doom-sayers wrong as well per se, but it does show
that reality throws some quite unexpected factors into the mix as time goes
on.  Lunar polar ice has come and (recently) gone and may still be there.
Lunar Helium 3 may be there, or may be as non-existent as the vast depths of
lunar dust that were theoretically meant to be there but vanished in theory
and fact once early lunar landers showed they had never existed. What else
lurks?




       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@043827 by Mike Singer

picon face
> Yajyaj wrote:
> > In other words, the USA is presently using fossil fuels more than
> > 100 times greater than the total absorption of solar radiation
across
> > the entire USA!
>
> "100 times greater than the total absorption of solar radiation " it's

> a bit overkill even for the USA. You'll cook out the country.
> Imaging Death Valley at noon but with solar radiation, say, 10
> times more.

  My language problems, if for "absorption" he meant difference
between incoming solar energy and outcoming Earth radiation then
perhaps he is right.
Death Valley seems to absorbs solar radiation much less than north
of Alaska this way.

Russell, are you planning next tour through winter Alaska?:-).
Polar night Eskimo - rocket tour with all these north dogs and all :-)
"Polar Night Sky Rockets" tour.

Mike.
Don't feel offended, Russell, just a light joke :-)

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@111540 by Oliver Broad

flavicon
face
I'd say a major test of any "renewable" fuel scheme is can it achieve "self
sufficiency" as I've read stats about how the amount of fuel energy spent on
farming exceeds the energy value of the crops. Where the process does not
produce an energy form usable in the process, say in the willow biomass
system the biomass is burnt to produce electricity but the machinery needs
oil, ideally a biofuel oil should be grown or at least the price of a
biofuel used for costing. Otherwise you don't have breakeven.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@114731 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>Russell McMahon:
>The well researched and funded club of Rome (1970s)
>were magnificently wrong in their "end of the world
>as we know it" scenarios. That doesn't make other

None of the scenarios were "wrong".  Two main conclusions were reached by
this study. The first suggests that if economic-development-as-we-know-it
continues, society will run out of nonrenewable resources before the year
2072. The inevitable depletion of natural resources will result in a
precipitous collapse of the economic system and massive human die-off.

The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal approaches to solving
individual problems will not be successful. For example, the authors
arbitrarily double their estimates of the resource base and allow the model
to project a new scenario based on this new higher level of resources.
Collapse occurs in the new scenario because of pollution instead of resource
depletion. In other words, traditional forms of economic development will
end in less than 100 years -- one way or another:

"Finally investment cannot keep up with [physical] depreciation, and the
industrial base collapses, taking with it the service and agricultural
systems, which have become dependent upon industrial inputs (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, hospital laboratories, computers, and especially
energy for mechanization). For a short time the situation is especially
serious because population, with the delays inherent in the age structure
and the process of social adjustment, keeps rising. Finally population
decreases when the death rate is driven upward by lack of food and health
services."

You can see some actual scans from the book at:
http://dieoff.com/LimitsToGrowth.htm .

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@115558 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>Oliver Broad
>
>I'd say a major test of any "renewable" fuel scheme is can
>it achieve "self sufficiency" as I've read stats about how
>the amount of fuel energy spent on farming exceeds the energy
>value of the crops. Where the process does not produce an

Agreed.  However, the devil is in the details.

Where do you draw the system boundaries for your calculations?

How do you convert fundamentally different types of fuel to common units for
comparison?

Everyone except Odum and his students ignores these real-world problems.
And like all good engineers, we know that problems don't go away just
because we choose to ignore them.

Jay

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@123617 by Oliver Broad

flavicon
face
As a last resort you might specify the use of steam powered machinery, if it
takes fossil fuels out of the equation. In the early stages at least I would
ignore the cost of labour though eventually that would have to be factored
in. Manufacturing cost of machinery would ultimately have to be counted.
Many "renewable" processes may never pass that test.

Changing the subject a little it seems to me as if doomsday scenarios assume
that the oil suddenly stops flowing. I would assume that as the oil becomes
increasingly scarce the cost would rise steadily, hitting it's heaviest
users in turn, eg cars first then air travel, then haulage, then electricity
and only finally industry. I would expect this to happen over a timescale of
more than one generation. I would expect third world countries to be hit
badly, first world economies though heavily oil-dependant would have greater
scope for cutbacks. The most inefficient users of a resource suffer least
from a shortage.

Having said that it's probably not going to be a good time to be living in a
city. Nuclear power may be the only energy source to sustain that population
density without fossil fuel.

Hopefully fusion power will turn into a real source of energy. I gather
fusion has been achieved but I presume we're still nowhere near first
breakeven.
{Original Message removed}

2003\11\16@144751 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Russell, are you planning next tour through winter Alaska?:-).

No.

> Don't feel offended, Russell, just a light joke :-)

Very seldom. Never about such as this :-)

       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@144752 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>Russell McMahon:
>>The well researched and funded club of Rome (1970s)
>>were magnificently wrong in their "end of the world
>>as we know it" scenarios. That doesn't make other

> None of the scenarios were "wrong".

I assume you mean that none of Odum's scenarios are wrong?
You may be correct.

However, at the time, none of the Club of Rome scenarios were wrong either.
No matter what they did and what realistically reasonable figures they
plugged into their equations, the result was doom. But they ended up being
wrong in reality. Which is where it ultimately counts.

I am not at all saying that Odum and co ARE wrong. (I haven't read anything
of what they have to say, only what people say they say,  so I can't say
much about their correctness). HOWEVER, past experience shows that theorists
who reach extreme views are often enough either the heralds of new
enlightenment (and it certainly happens), or off on an inobvious tangent.
The trouble is, without hindsight, it can be very very very hard to say
which is which and why. Have a look at the progress of the theory of Plate
Tectonics for an example of a "theory" that struggled for literally decades
to overcome established knowledge before it in turn became holy writ. One
would now be just as derided if one rejected plate tectonics as Wegener &
then Holmes were when they proposed it. What any blind fool with a map of
the world can now see as obvious was fought against tooth and nail for
decades by established science.

       www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html
       http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html


Without having read the materialism not sure what counts as "non renewable
resources" but odds are lunar Helium 3 isn't on their list. Adding this, or
other as yet unthought of sources, can rather skew ones assumption sets -
and let us go on wasting energy on, in many cases, trivial activities as we
do at present :-).



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\17@093124 by juan garofalo

flavicon
face
somebody @ TakeThisOuTyajyajEraseMEspamspam_OUTCHATZILLA.COM wrote:

>The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal approaches to solving
>individual problems will not be successful


       Perhaps is this a hint that "central planning" is the way to go ??

        It's incredible that after a century (20th) of mysery and murders
caused by "social engineering" some people still invoke [what they call]
science, as mr. marx did,  to promote their totalitarian political agenda.


Best Regards,

Juan.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@120917 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>Juan
>
>It's incredible that after a century (20th) of mysery and murders
>caused by "social engineering" some people still invoke [what they
>call] science, as mr. marx did,  to promote their totalitarian
>political agenda.

I have to go back to work.  I left a short synopsis of fifteen years of
research on these subjects at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_dieoff_QA/files/farewell.txt

Good luck,
Jay

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@123624 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>Russell McMahon
>
>Without having read the materialism not sure what
>counts as "non renewable resources" but odds are
>lunar Helium 3 isn't on their list. Adding this,

You are missing the point Russell.  Any energy source on the moon might as
well be a billion light years away because we would expend more energy
retrieving it than we would ever recover by burning it.

Read this article: ENERGETIC LIMITS TO GROWTH
http://www.dieoff.com/page175.htm

It's an article I wrote for ENERGY MAGAZINE.  It explains net energy,
describes the results of the COR study, and more.

I have to go back to work.

Good luck,
Jay

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@124120 by yajyaj

flavicon
face
>Nuclear power may be the only energy source to sustain
>that population density without fossil fuel.

The fraction of energy produced by conventional nuclear can not be expanded
because of a shortage of fuel.

Global oil production will "peak" this decade.  The best source of
information on oil production can be found at http://www.peakoil.net/  and
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

North American natural gas is "cliffing" now.  When it becomes a social
crisis depends upon the weather.

More in http://www.dieoff.com/synopsis.htm

I have to go back to work.

Good luck,
Jay

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@184504 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
roughly speaking

you say that USA uses 100 times the energy of the incident sunlight?
thats ~ 1.3Kw per square M
so you say they are using .13megawatts per square meter?
a big generator is 200megawats
so they would need a big generator for every 1500 sqm?
and for the land surface of the USA thats 315328 terawatts?

"The total world power consumption is presently about 10 TW"

"one millionth of a gram (1 ?g) of mass to energy every second would release
approximately 90 megawatts [millions of watts] of power"

so we need 111111 ug/s to run earth
I might be off by a factor of 10 but i get 3.5 tones of mass converted to
energy per year.

pushing say 350 tonnes of mass from the moon to earth dosent cost that much
energy (solar power is handy on the moon)

anyway methinks that with sufficent motivation d/d fusion will happen mainly
because it has to.

{Original Message removed}

2003\11\17@185539 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I left a short synopsis of fifteen years of
> research on these subjects at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_dieoff_QA/files/farewell.txt
>
> Good luck,

It's need alas.
The energy cost in pico-sejs required to access that page are too high.
First you need to be a Yahoo group member (I am) and then the page is still
not accessible as it is moderated and access must be approved by the list
owner (Jay?)

Can you post this material somewhere more accessible?
If not, you could consider emailing it to me (or a subset) *as a single
file*  and I can temporarily post it somewhere accessible to all.


       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@185539 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >Without having read the material not sure what
> >counts as "non renewable resources" but odds are
> >lunar Helium 3 isn't on their list.

> You are missing the point Russell.  Any energy source on the moon might as
> well be a billion light years away because we would expend more energy
> retrieving it than we would ever recover by burning it.

No. I'm not missing the point.
Quite possibly you may not have realised the "energy content" of Helium 3.
It is the "feedstock" for thermonuclear fusion reactors. When/If they ever
get this technology working (involves faith/engineering) the energy required
to deliver a year's supply to earth, including all startup costs and R&D for
the delivery systems are liable to produce immediate payback. IF, of course,
the fuel is actually there as they believe it is :-)

At an energy density of 19 megawatt years* per kilogram it's over 10
US-trillion times more energy dense than fossil fuels. That helps its sej
ratings somewhat. (* about E15 kWh/kg)(!!!!!!!)

Here's a pretty but clumsy PDF presentation that outlines why He3- He3 may
be the "ultimate" power source. (Fusion at 70% efficiency with no
radioactive waste sounds rather attractive).

       http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/FTI/POSTERS/glk_isdc.pdf

Here's an interesting but somewhat lightweight commentary

       http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

Whether lunar strip mining, even if possible, is desirable (or necessary) is
quite another issue. Once you get the first plants going you can set your
sights on getting an ongoing supply from the gas giants further out in our
solar system :-).

Here's some blue sky dreaming on the subject (on a pretty blue (ok, cyan)
page)

       http://groups.msn.com/DaveDietzler/thecaseforsaturn.msnw



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@190159 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> anyway methinks that with sufficent motivation d/d fusion will happen
mainly
> because it has to.


Hope not :-)
d-d is messy (d-t?)
We demand d-h to start and h-h as the goal.
We can dream :-)

       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@192935 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
h-h is the way to go eventually
if we run outta that stuff we's going to have bigger problems methinks lol.

food for thaught
a +ve energy perpetual motion machine
assuming you have 100% (or nearly so) straight mass > energy conversion and
back

produce H2 + 02 (or Fl2 etc mmmmmm)
from energy

burn those two to make energy to use

convert the reacted products back to energy and start the cycle over again

see simple innit ;->

{Original Message removed}

2003\11\17@204131 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> h-h is the way to go eventually

If you can achieve that you will be a real star!

       RM


:-)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@213607 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Monday, Nov 17, 2003, at 15:44 US/Pacific, Jake Anderson wrote:
>
> you say that USA uses 100 times the energy of the incident sunlight?
>
Actually, I think he said that fossil fuel consumption is equivalent to
100 times the incident sunlight energy, after assuming horrendous
(but not necessarilly incorrect) conversion factors for each of the
stages
from sunlight->biomass->...->fossilfuel.  This is a way of including the
difficulties (ie inefficiency) of creating the fossil fuels; we're using
up the fossil fuels at a rate 100 times that with which they could
possibly
be replaced...

But I'm not sure it's relevant.  The whole point of alternative energy
sources,  including solar and biomass, is to replace those inefficient
steps with more efficient ones, or eliminate them entirely.  So a solar
cell converts sunlight directly at better than 10% efficiency (not
counting
manufacturing/etc, which you do need to count sooner or later), which is
better than solar to biomass efficiency, and much much better than solar
to fossil fuel to electricity conversion.  Biomass research presumably
includes finding plants that are more efficient than "average", and I
assume the point of the original posting was that someone was claiming
that willow trees were more efficient that some other fuels.  (Willows
make great charcoal for fireworks, btw...)

So the article claims that there's about a 10:1 payback for willow
biomass,
and the counter-argument is that if that "1" HAS to be fossil fuels,
it's
not nearly efficient enough to reach a steady state...  But we don't
really
know how much of the "1" needs to be fossil fuels, because there isn't a
lot of effort directed at running willow harvesting appliances off of
willow wood.  Yet.  Presumably, willow is better than "something else",
or there wouldn't be a paper.  At least in some growing conditions.

Personally, I want direct ethanol fuel cells, at the end of a grow,
ferment,
fuel cell chain that's both shorter and more efficient than fossil fuel
generations.  The whole Bush "hydrogen fuel cell" thing is a bit
depressing,
because large scale hydrogen generation currently uses ... fossil
fuels.  I
guess he had to keep his oil buddies happy :-(

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@232320 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
hydrogen is just a pain in the royal order to use too, its density is just
so very very low.

even if we had fusion power I think synthesising methane or some form of
hydrocarbon then running that through the fuel cell is the way to go just so
we can have sensiblle sized tanks and just a little flamability hazard
compared to the big explosion risk H2 poses.

{Original Message removed}

2003\11\17@235505 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> hydrogen is just a pain in the royal order to use too, its density is just
> so very very low.

Metal Hydrides show promise.
The LOW molecular weight, clean combustion and uniquely high energy per mol
make it an attractive target, density notwithstanding.

FWIW, LIQUID hydrogen has a density 14 times lower than eg liquid air!


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2003 , 2004 only
- Today
- New search...