Fuel of the Future

[Pillager]

Is getting fusion to work not just a matter of time? If so, twenty, thirty, fifty years?

 

[col]

Well.

We've been saying that now for a long time. A lot of progress has been made at JET and elsewhere but even the most optimistic predictions for a useable powerplant dont bring it in the next fifty years.

 

[scotland_no1]

yes pillager you are right about it taking a long time, but, we can take a leaf out of the rest of the european unions book, we see that in europe more and more renewable sources are being created. Germany is the leading country for this and it intends to get rid of all of its nuclear power stations by 2010.

so i believe that if enough money is invested around the world then most of our power can easily come form renewable, this would be expensive to maintain, but weould be a a viable energy source untill fusion can finally be harnessed.

you shoudl search and check out the new wave and wind program that is going to come into action soon enough.

the wind and wave turbines are on a large platform out at sea .wind power turbines on top and wave power tubines underneath. takes up less room and douple the power per square meter

 

[Pikachu]

First of all, fusion is not splitting of hydrogen molecules, its fusion of hydrogen atoms. Two hydrogen atoms become one helium atom. This is basically what happens at the sun, and it gets very hot. I don't think we will find a way to control this in this century. Creating a sun at earth is generally a bad idea. We have already done that, it's called the hydrogen bomb and is very destructive.

Second, hydrogen is a wonderful fuel. The water that's produced when it explodes is not a problem. Burning oil does also produce water, but nobody seems to be bothered by that. The difficulties with storage of hydrogen, explosion danger and so on will be solved when we need the technology, but hydrogen does not grow on threes! It takes a lot of energy to make it. Were would we get this energy? My guess is from coal, petroleum and nuclear power, and then we haven't really solved anything.

About 3/4 of the energy we use come from fossil fuels, and this will not easily be replaced. Hydropower is the best renewable energy source, but there simply aren't enough waterfalls in the world to supply our demand. We could use wind energy or sun energy, but those demand incredibly large areas, and are very expensive. Waves could be a better idea, but since few scientists are researching that area, I suspect it might be a bad idea too.

The solution is probably to use a little of everything: water, wind, sun, waves and nuclear power

 

[scotland_no1]

Originally posted by Pikachu
First of all, fusion is not splitting of hydrogen molecules, its fusion of hydrogen atoms. Two hydrogen atoms become one helium atom. This is basically what happens at the sun, and it gets very hot. I don't think we will find a way to control this in this century. Creating a sun at earth is generally a bad idea. We have already done that, it's called the hydrogen bomb and is very destructive.

The solution is probably to use a little of everything: water, wind, sun, waves and nuclear power

nobody on this entire thread said fusion was the spliting of hydrogen molecules, we all said fusion was the splitting of hydrogen atoms, we know tht already, you dont need to tell us again.

 

[Pikachu]

And it is not splitting; it is fusion, melting together. The opposite of splitting

 

[Pillager]

Scotland_no1

nobody on this entire thread said fusion was the spliting of hydrogen molecules, we all said fusion was the splitting of hydrogen atoms, we know tht already, you dont need to tell us again.

Speak for yourself. I have bugger all idea what any of this means...

 

[scotland_no1]

no you are wrong, fusion is the splitting of the atom, you let it combine, then you break it down releasing energy, that is why hydrogen is one of the 7 diatomic elements.

 

[Pikachu]

Look up the world "fusion" in a dictionary.

 

[scotland_no1]

as i said it allows the combinging, then the spliting to release energy. the fusion deriving from the combining of the diatomic in the chemical process. and this diatomic happens to be hydrogen

 

[col]

Hehe you asked for it - fusion means the joining together of small nuclei into larger ones. The most promising reaction in fusion reaction is deuterium - tritium (D-T) which are two istopes of Hydrogen. They fuse to form helium and release a neutron. At present , no fusion reactor puts out more enrgy than it uses.

In the Sun , protons fuse togther to form Helium. There are two mechanisms - the Hydrogn cycle and the Carbon/Oxygen cycle.

If you want any more information, PM me and I'll send you a few links, but be warned there may be a test afterwards.

 

[Pikachu]

Tank you col. You clearified what I tried to say. You explained it well

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Pasi Nurminen
Which is exactly why petroleum corporations and the Republican party will/are doing everything in their power to hold such fuels back. Greed is a very ugly thing.

Sigh.....

I hate it when people post their ill-founded conspiracy theories with zero to back them up.

Why don't you look at a few websites from these evil pertoleum corporations, and see what they are doing in terms of research into alternative fuels. Not just hydrogen, but also solar and wind.

If there is money to be made in alternative fuels, then petroleum corporations would be stupid not to invest in it. Do you really think that they don't realise that reserves are running out? Do you really think that they don't want to be in existance in 50 years

Originally posted by Pasi Nurminen
Second, hydrogen is a wonderful fuel. The water that's produced when it explodes is not a problem. Burning oil does also produce water, but nobody seems to be bothered by that.

Hydrogen produces more water / joule of energy than oil. As the world moves towards a hydrogen economy, there will be more water / unit of energy consumed than with a coal / oil economy. Ie - people may start caring about all the water. You could argue that its a greenhouse gas (ie heat retaining) too.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Originally posted by col
Even if (and its a big if) we get fusin to work, we will still need to find a way to store that energy in a light and compact form. Current battery technology cant deliver that. I understand that Iceland is exporting her extra energy - from geothermal and hydroelectric stations - in the form of hydrogen fuel cells.

This has been a long term obsession of mine. Statiscally, about 100W of energy falls every square metre of the earth (on average). If you think about it, we are surrounded by thermal energy as well.

"It's raining energy, folks. The trick is to build a bucket to catch it and store it in" (Robert A Heinlein).

Hydrogren has a lot of benefits - lower pollution (you still get a bit of nitrous oxide from the combustion) and a very low mass. The trouble is the buik - you need to liquify the stuff to get it into a small enough volume to make it transportable - and liquifying hydrogen is an energy expensive process.

What would be nice would be a fuel cell that extracts hydrogen from water, uses it an internal combustion engine (made from non-hydogenising metal, even better ceramics) and then feeds the exhaust back into the water tank. You would need some sort of fuel block to actually use in the process - some substances will split the hydrogen off from the water but you have to add energy as well for the reduction to happen.

You would still need to make and recycle this energy material, but the pollution processes would be inside factories, as opposed to spread all over the environment.

 

[Perfection]

OK here's the ideal energy system for the next 50 years

All energy is derived from clean replenishable sources (Wind, Solar, Geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, etc.) and nuclear sources (Fission until Clean sources become more of possibility and fusion if/when it becomes a viable source). These are used to generate electricity, some of that is used to split water into H2 and O2 where O2 will be released and the H2 saved for fuel usage.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by scotland_no1
hydrogen under pressure is a liquid, so that is storage,
hydrogen can easily be made form sea water, so that is collection. hydrogen is just as flammable as the fuel oils we use in oir cars now.

I see. So you want to transport in cryogenic conditions a substance where is invisibly explosive if it escapes. I can see potential problems if the cryo bottle is breached, if power fails, or if some very difficult conditions are not maitained. BTW H2 is not "just as flammable" it is leaps and bounds MORE flammable, and a lot harder to keep in place. Col is the pysicist. Ask him about this kind of physical situation.

True H2 can be manufactured from seawater. So can gold. The devil is in the details. How will the H2 be removed from seawater? This is a nontrivial engineering/chemical question.

Originally posted by scotland_no1
remember no liquid burns. it is the gaseus vapours above the liquid that burn, so if hydrogen burns in pressure then there isnt much of a problem, and there is no pollution. remeber fire is oxygen, so burning hydrogen makes water. i dont think humidity would increase in scotland too much, it rains a lot here, but you are probably right about desert countries and warmer ones. still... spacerockets use hydrogen as a feul, so its not really that far away, i see no reason why it cannot be harnessed.

The reason I said that H2 is "NASTY dangerous" is that it goes quite easily to a gaseous state, whether stored under pressure or in liquid. Since the molecule is so small, it migrates through places that will contain other gasses. Its almost a fuel air explosive as it sits.

I would not consider the vaporous water as a serious pollution consideration (though it is the number one greenhouse gas), because fossile fuel emits water as one of its two principle byproducts (CO2 is the other). The increase would not be sufficiently higher to cause concern.

Originally posted by TNG
Well if we start using Hydrogen to power cars and other stuff, the oil industry will start to collapse, unless they buy the oil and extract the Hydrogen from that. But water is a much cheaper source.

That's a good one. Who do you think would likely be in the business of supplying/marketing it? Oil, or rather methane, which can be made from oil, is the easiest large scale source. Making it from water requires large scale power usage, which inturn requires large scale power availability. On the local level extracting it from fossile fuels is simplest.

J

 

[CruddyLeper]

Originally posted by onejayhawk


...SNIP... That's a good one. Who do you think would likely be in the business of supplying/marketing it? Oil, or rather methane, which can be made from oil, is the easiest large scale source. Making it from water requires large scale power usage, which inturn requires large scale power availability. On the local level extracting it from fossile fuels is simplest.

Yes, the point of this thread is the FUTURE source of energy, that is when all the oil has been burned. If we don't start working out how to use natural resources more effectively this will happen sooner rather than later.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
That's a good one. Who do you think would likely be in the business of supplying/marketing it? Oil, or rather methane, which can be made from oil, is the easiest large scale source. Making it from water requires large scale power usage, which inturn requires large scale power availability. On the local level extracting it from fossile fuels is simplest.

J

There're humongous deposits of solidified methane in the deep seas (due to high sea pressures in the deep), hundreds of times more than than all the available oil in history.

Problem is getting there to mine it though.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by CruddyLeper
Yes, the point of this thread is the FUTURE source of energy, that is when all the oil has been burned. If we don't start working out how to use natural resources more effectively this will happen sooner rather than later.

You obviate the point not at all. There are vast reserves of untapped fossile fuel. Extraction is the problem. More to the point economics is the problem. The known reserves of oil, found but unprofitable, are sufficient to reach halfway through the mellenium, at current usage. Find another way to generate electricity, and they stretch almost indefinitely. To run out of oil soon you have to limit the recovery to currently profitable sources. Advance recovery technology or alternate methodology, and the whole problem becomes fiction.

Originally posted by XIII
There're humongous deposits of solidified methane in the deep seas (due to high sea pressures in the deep), hundreds of times more than than all the available oil in history. Problem is getting there to mine it though.

For example.

J

 

[G-Man]

I don't know much about chemistry but if cars will work on H and O, wouldn't this mean they'll each carry a lot of these two gasses in high pressure? I mean, wouldn't it make car accidents much more dangerous than they're now?