The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: cavalier973 on January 28, 2011, 01:10:07 AM
-
http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2011/01/27/cella-hydrogen-based-synthetic-fuel-with-no-carbon-emissions/
"UK-based Cella Energy has developed a synthetic fuel that could lead to US$1.50 per gallon gasoline. It is hydrogen based fuel and produces no carbon emissions when burned. The technology is based on complex hydrides, and has been developed over a four year top secret program at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford. Early indications are that the fuel can be used in existing internal combustion engined vehicles without engine modification."
-
Labrotory explodes under mysterious circumstances.
-
Found the same article the other day and posted it at the SGU (Skeptics Guide to the Universe) forums.
-
Something tells me that even if this new fuel is all its cracked up to be, the "powers that be" would never allow it to get to market, at least not until they can sell all of the black goo in the ground first.
Im not defending their position, but think about all the companies linked to oil that would suddenly be put out of business immediately after this stuff went to market. All the CEO''s, oil company accountants, lawyers,stock values, drilling companies, millions of lower level workers........ the list goes on and on.
Anyone think they would let some invention get in the way of all that commerce? US presidents have been killed for far less than this.
Black market would be nice though. Meet your dealer in the alley for "10 gallons of the good stuff"
-
Cool, except impossible. The definition of combustion is a reaction oxygen and carbon are fuels, and the byproducts are heat and water. At least thats what I learned in high school chem.
-
Why does this have to be a conspiracy? If it is true (and I doubt it), the "powers that be" will be falling all over themselves to get licensing, reverse engineer, or invent an alternative to cash in on the demand for the product as quickly as possible. Businesses are in the game for profits, and cartel pricing is extremely difficult to maintain. Just my take.
-
If it is true (and I doubt it), the "powers that be" will be falling all over themselves to get licensing, reverse engineer, or invent an alternative to cash in on the demand for the product as quickly as possible.
That's what I thought about thermal depolymerization.
-
Cool, except impossible. The definition of combustion is a reaction oxygen and carbon are fuels, and the byproducts are heat and water. At least thats what I learned in high school chem.
Um, either you or your chemistry teacher was confused.
-
Cool, except impossible. The definition of combustion is a reaction oxygen and carbon are fuels, and the byproducts are heat and water. At least thats what I learned in high school chem.
Um, either you or your chemistry teacher was confused.
Damn that was a poorly worded post I made. This is what I mean:
"Combustion or burning is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species...........
.....A simple example can be seen in the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, which is a commonly used reaction in rocket engines:
2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat
The result is water vapor.
Complete combustion is almost impossible to achieve. In reality, as actual combustion reactions come to equilibrium, a wide variety of major and minor species will be present such as carbon monoxide and pure carbon (soot or ash). Additionally, any combustion in atmospheric air, which is 78% nitrogen, will also create several forms of nitrogen oxides."
Source is Wikipedia.
-
I'm sure that all they need are "a few investors" to bring this new miracle product to market. :wink:
-
I'm sure that all they need are "a few investors" to bring this new miracle product to market. :wink:
aw, crud....do you think I can get my $5,000 back?
-
I'm sure that all they need are "a few investors" to bring this new miracle product to market. :wink:
aw, crud....do you think I can get my $5,000 back?
...
-
How much would the stuff actually cost after the government is done taxing it to death?
Oil prices are artificially high, in part, because the government taxes all through the system, that all get calculated back to the end user, on top of the 10% or something that's directly taxed.
The oil companies would make less, but the industry wouldn't just disappear, most of our modern day plastics and polymers are based on oil, along with a shit load of other products.
Further, even if this new fuel is actually produceable on a large enough scale, which is going to take at least a decade (it takes quite a while to build a large scale chemical plant, and even longer than it should thanks to Uncle Sam) it still needs to be distributed.
The oil companies already have the infrastructure in place for that and can easily make a lot of profit just from doing that.
If the price quoted is correct for large scale production, the fact that it's produced so much cheaper will recoup for a lot of their losses in the oil industry, seeing that oil has a high production cost.
I don't think it would meet much resistance from becoming our next fuel, considering all things involved... IF the stuff actually works, and IF it can easily and cheaply be produced.
-
How much would the stuff actually cost after the government is done taxing it to death?
Oil prices are artificially high, in part, because the government taxes all through the system, that all get calculated back to the end user, on top of the 10% or something that's directly taxed.
The oil companies would make less, but the industry wouldn't just disappear, most of our modern day plastics and polymers are based on oil, along with a shit load of other products.
Further, even if this new fuel is actually produceable on a large enough scale, which is going to take at least a decade (it takes quite a while to build a large scale chemical plant, and even longer than it should thanks to Uncle Sam) it still needs to be distributed.
The oil companies already have the infrastructure in place for that and can easily make a lot of profit just from doing that.
If the price quoted is correct for large scale production, the fact that it's produced so much cheaper will recoup for a lot of their losses in the oil industry, seeing that oil has a high production cost.
I don't think it would meet much resistance from becoming our next fuel, considering all things involved... IF the stuff actually works, and IF it can easily and cheaply be produced.
It wouldn't take that long.Many companies, like Koch Industries, have huge infrastructure already in place (chemical plants, truck fleets, etc...) and are always on the lookout for the next big profit product (Koch bought a toilet paper mfg'er right before everything went to shit, so they seem to be able to read the market). If the product is nearly as viable as its made out to be, it'll be ready for government testing in 2-4 years and the government(s) should be done with it within 4-25 years, after which mass production would ramp up VERY quickly. Meh, I'm just speculating.
-
Euhm, yeah.... I said it would take quite a while... a decade or so.
A decade is 10 years, you claim it would be anywhere from 6 to 29 years...
10 years fall in between 6 and 29 years, so are you actually disagreeing with me on that point?
Having chemical plants in place does not mean that those chemical plants are actually able to produce this new fuel.
Most chemical plants make very very specific things and can't just randomly be switched to making other things.
Most chemical plants also already have high profiting output markets which won't just be given up on because the new thing comes along.
Companies rarely want to decrease their market, even if they've got a new "goose with golden eggs".
It's therefore much more likely that plants will be added than that current plants will take over full responsibility for the production of this stuff.
Building a new plant is a 10 year process from plans to full production, so that's going to take a while.
Seeing that building a plant takes 10 years, at the very least it will be 10 years before they can produce this stuff at the rate that we currently use oil and this new stuff takes over the market from oil.
-
Sorry. I stared that post on my morning break and finished it on my lunch. When I started, I disagreed, but by the time I got around to finishing it, I had thought about the sheer mass of govt interference and come to agree.
-
Yeah, maybe I should have been more clear about that...
I'm not saying that it takes 10 years to physically build a plant.
The physical build of a plant can be done in anywhere between 6 months and about 2.5 years, depending on how complicated the plant is.
It's the permits, the plans, the terrain research, the social impact studies, the traffic studies, the environmental studies and so on that causes what should be a year to become a decade.
-
The only way I can see that this would lead to $1.50 per gallon fuel is if it weren't taxed. This also assumes that one gallon of each is comparable, which probably isn't the case.
Anyway, like everyone else they're making their hydrogen from natural gas (methane). While it isn't currently in as short supply (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Peak_gas) worldwide as oil, what do you think will happen if any significant number of people switch their cars to it?
So, the final solution is probably going to be urine-powered cars (http://www.physorg.com/news165836803.html)...
-
You're all assuming that the government will be around and in a position to be a roadblock for technological competition. This is becoming an ever increasingly unlikely scenario considering the economic situation.
-
You're all assuming that the government will be around and in a position to be a roadblock for technological competition. This is becoming an ever increasingly unlikely scenario considering the economic situation.
What?
-
You're all assuming that the government will be around and in a position to be a roadblock for technological competition. This is becoming an ever increasingly unlikely scenario considering the economic situation.
What?
I guess that did sounded like I was being super optimistic about when the state was going to kick the bucket. I was referring to how the economic situation will soon hit the state as hard as it'll hit the peons and that when this happens, the state will be too worried about a revolution to worry about taxing new energy sources.