peak oil= no skydiving

[pilatus_p 0]

Hi Billvon,

Thank you for your post and info on the Honda methane car. With all due respect, please can you add to your information? The aim is to produce a fuel that will not make CO2 or greenhouse gases when it is burned.

Biogas is methane produced by natural means, namely decomposition of natural substances. The chemical process for burning methane is:

CH4 + 2O2 >>> CO2 + 2H2O

You can see that by burning it, it is not zero carbon, though I would love to hear if there is some catalyst reaction that can eliminate the CO2?

The CO2 and water are very hard to separate post combustion, whereas the methane >> hydrogen chemical separation process provides CO2 as an easily retrievable component. In addition, landfill biogas combustion in engines can produce other by-products known as siloxanes, which coat engine pistons and require them to be overhauled every 5000 hours. Burning pure methane in aero-derivative, high power to weight ratio gas turbines, as we see on our offshore platforms, causes long term coking of combustion parts which can lead to vibration induced failures and catastrophic corrosion failures. Gas turbines however can be made to be tolerant of, and actually derive further power from, the injection of steam, which is a natural byproduct of burning hydrogen.

Methane taken from oil reservoirs produces no excess carbon dioxide released to atmosphere as byproduct in the manufacture process itself - because it happened deep underground many millennia ago. As you know, it is burning it that causes the release. Again I am struggling to see the advantage that biogases have here?

In addition, methane itself is a greenhouse gas. If it is widely applied, the inevitable leaks from, for example, cars and filling stations (due to the frequent plug-in, unplug nature of such a place) will add to the effect we are trying to reverse, and in any case its combustion is not carbon free as shown by the mass balance above.

You are correct that Hydrogen is a dangerous gas to use and transport - I am being overly optimistic with my desires for a hydrogen gas powered car, though it would be great to see!

I like the methane separator idea, though we would need to make separator technology small enough to fit in a car and methane / hydrogen vessels resistant to crashes and fire, bearing in mind that petrol and diesel must be vapourised or in the correct air/fuel ratio before they will combust which makes them safer in this application. Gases are much more readily flammable in this repsect.

Ross

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

Quote

Now, you tell me how I'm supposed to take it when you LAUGH right before you say you "feel" for all the families?

Yeah, what you said was all true, eh? I didn't know you were a personal advisor to the President of the United States? You know for a FACT that oil was his reason for the war in Iraq? I'm not saying that it wasn't a strategic consideration, but one of MANY I am sure... Do I know any more than you? Hell no, but at the same time, I'm not going to come across as such a simpleton and point my finger and laugh....... What you said was rude....I don't give a shit how you try to defend it......it_was_rude.

Hey Jose,

Thanks for replying. I'm not trying to defend my statement at all. I still don't think you're getting what I said, maybe you didn't notice the sarcasm right "before" I said "hahah". Either way, these are forums, where opinions are expressed, and I expressed mine. Whether they are right or wrong, I'll never know and neither will you. No one else as far as I saw made any mention about the post.

Anyways,

Thanks again for replying

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[pilatus_p 0]

DZ.com users are intelligent and do not to respond to trollish posts.

Ross

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

Honestly, why was that trollish?

The discussion is about oil prices, I explained who controls them (or at least my opinion). I don't see where you get trolling from that?

I put links to the oil reserves in the world, and an article about how the government hushed something that would decrease their profits from oil.

Please explain how that would be trolling? Was my post not on topic?? I think it was.

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I would love to hear if there is some catalyst reaction that can eliminate the CO2?

This might be crazy talk, but would the CO2 be such a big problem if we (people) stopped deforesting the planet?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,396]

>Biogas is methane produced by natural means, namely decomposition of
>natural substances. The chemical process for burning methane is:

>CH4 + 2O2 >>> CO2 + 2H2O

>You can see that by burning it, it is not zero carbon, though I would love
>to hear if there is some catalyst reaction that can eliminate the CO2?

Biogas production uses bacteria to break down carbon-based plant/animal waste into CH4 (methane.) In the case of plant waste, or cattle waste (which is 99% broken down corn/grass) that carbon comes from the cellulose and sugars in the plant material. The plant got the carbon for all that cellulose from the CO2 in the atmosphere.

So the CO2 released by burning the methane is reabsorbed by the plants that will make the next generation of fuel. It's not zero carbon output, but the net effect is zero, since the cycle is closed.

Let's imagine a more straightforward cycle. You break down atmospheric water (i.e. rain) into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis. Then you use the Sabatier cycle to convert atmospheric CO2 and H2 to O2 and CH4. You vent the oxygen.

Then you burn the methane in a vehicle, releasing CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere.

At the fuel plant, you then reabsorb atmospheric CO2 and H20 to make more fuel. Net increase in water/CO2: zero.

The biogas cycle is a lot more complex, but has the same basic cyclical nature.

>Gases are much more readily flammable in this repsect.

Agreed. But hydrogen will burn in any concentration (in air) between 4% and 75%. Methane needs concentrations between 6 and 15%. So hydrogen is a lot more likely to blow when it leaks.

[pilatus_p 0]

Hi Billvon

The theory seems sound, but the reality would be quite different. You're presuming a 1:1 relationship for the whole system, as in for every molecule of CO2 produced there is enough plant life around to convert it back to oxygen.

The biogas in your example has come from landfill and cattle and this is being produced in a concentrated way. It is then being burnt in a concentrated way too - something that the Earth's natural resources are not designed to deal with (to respond to the poster above - yes deforestation is a major contributor here).

You are also referring to a highly local system, when in fact what we have is a massively distributed one. CO2 evolved by combustion climbs high into the atmosphere. It is distributed globally by air currents and it is up here that it does its damage, preventing heat energy from escaping into space. If you can somehow have 'collectors' at ground level for the CO2, they would need to be massively efficient and filter an absolutely vast amount of atmospheric air continuously - in themselves consuming massive quantities of energy.

For the theory your present to work, you must limit global production of CO2 to the level that the established natural systems are able to cope with. Aside from the question of 'would landfill gas be enough to supply the world with power' (our platform alone produces 300 million standard cubic feet of gas a day and this provides only a fraction of UK usage) which I suspect would be no, there is also the fact that the amount of landfill / biogas being burned (the 'unnatural' step in the chain) versus the amount of plants available to convert it are vastly out of proportion with one another - again, our demand would outstrip the natural system's ability to control it.

If we produce methane in enough quanityt to provide our energy needs, it will always outstrip natures ability to neutralise it - which is why we are n the position we are in now because the earth's natural regulkation sustem evolved to cope with what it already had. The widespread evolution of greenhouse gas is not something that earth is designed to cope with, though I would be happy to see the world covered with plants and trees! I volunteer Slough in England as a good place to start
Again, the best solution to the question of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to find a fuel that, when burned, will not release them into the atmosphere - and its proving to be a very tough challenge with a lot of incredible efforts to tackle it. For an island like the UK, I personally like the idea of tidal turbine generation. For the States - well this may be a much tougher nut to crack ... Do you guys have any geothermal?

Your post is great because it brings to light the precise nature of why we are in the global pickle we are, namely the earth's own carbon regulation system and its inability to deal with the 'artificial' practice of mass fossil fuel combustion. You also have a lot of great data in your post, thanks for the stuff on hydrogen concentrations - thats something that we will have to consider if we ever get as far as driving hydrogen tanks - perhaps better known now as 'bombs' - around town . I will have a chat with someone in our alternative fuels dept as they deal with biogas and its use - your idea may prove to be useful.

In other news - there's a guy in the UK that installed a huge array of energy reclaiming devices and a small wind turbine on his house - he claims to have brought his household energy consumption down to 25% of what it was originally, though it cost a great amount to install... I will try to find a link on it!

Ross

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

hi
sorry to bring bad news but it seems to me that as world oil production will soon be peak and begin its inevitable decline that sports such as skydiving will quickly be priced out of existance, except maybe for the ultra rich. if you're not familiar with peak oil check these out;

www.peakoil.com
www.peakoil.net
www.lifeafterthecrash.net (slighty more pessimistic)

as someone just entering this wonderful sport i find this information very depressing.

if you disagree please share, or if you operate a dz at what oil price will you be able to continue operating?

i'm so sorry

See "Ethanol."

Illinois Agriculture will be bigger than Big Oil soon.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[jose 0]

Quote

DZ.com users are intelligent and do not to respond to trollish posts.
Ross

Heh, I usually follow that creed....but sometimes, I let comments get to me. Either way, I'm done with this one.......it's impossible to discuss with those of a closed mind.

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

You are hilarious Jose. I have sent you a PM and posted in here to explain why you're so upset. I think you're the one with the closed mind, I've opened my mind to hear you're opinion more than once, and where's your reply?

All you came up with was that I said Hahah, before talking about the war. Umm, did you read what I said after I said Hahaha? Just because you "understood" it to be that I was laughing at the families and friends makes me the ass?

Like I said in the PM, by you not responding you're just proving that you have no valid point. Thanks for wasting my time.

Either way, I'm also done with this, thanks for your genuinely intelligent response, erm....nevermind.

Smile and nod, smile and nod.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[billvon 2,396]

How about both of you cut it out? Such things are best discussed in PM's (if at all.)

[skinnyflyer 0]

thanks for all the responses people.

my main point was that a combination of alternative energy sources does not exist which can replace oil.
as oil prices increase so will the price of all these alternatives. we are not running out of oil, we are running out of cheap oil.

the problem is fundamental; the first world economies especially north america's is based on exponential growth, economic and population growth which are completely based on the availability of cheap oil which is about to become history.

for the people who said that theres still lots of oil in the ground this true but isn't as important as production over time; the world currently produces about 85 000 000 million barrels of oil per day or about a thousand barrels per second but it will soon peak and decline. for example its been said that canada's tar sands contain hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil but they will never produce more than several million barrels per day.

ethanol is already becoming huge but there simply isn't enough farmland to scale it, and the net energy return isn't nearly as favorable as light sweet crude.
also ethanol and biodiesel will cause poor people to compete for food against 1st worlders who want to fill their gas tank and jump out of planes. the supermarket will be competing with the gas station.

natural gas has already peaked in north canada(we supply the us) and is in sharp decline, some say 8 years left. many sources are declining as much as 30% per year. that combined with the coming oil shortage means increased demand and reduced supply; economics says price goes up.

sorry to sound so pessimist but i've studied both pessimistic and optimistic data and the only conclusion i can come to is that tough times are ahead.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[pilatus_p 0]

It IS depressing I agree, but on the other hand its pretty exciting to be part of the solution. Discussions like this can raise ideas and alternatives which, crazily enough, just might work.

Have you also heard of Syngas? The world has a lot of coal still left because we switched to oil as our main power source sometime around WWII. Methane can be made by passing a flame through a channel drilled into a coalface - the gas emerges at the other end of the 'tube' - so where we have coal, we have natural gas. I know this won't totally solve the problem, and theres still the issue of using it in a carbon free manner, but what I want to get over is that we are trying very hard to find solutions - and I believe that we will.

"Needs must when the devil drives" as my dad always used to say.


Ross

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[skinnyflyer 0]

interesting i hadn't heard of that before.

the germans developped a technique to turn coal into a sort of sythetic liquid oil. this is what powered the nazi war machine in ww2 because they were cut of from any crude oil. since the us has one of the greatest reserves of coal it will start building lots of coal liquification plants, i think they might have started already.

all of the fossil fuels available will be burned into the atmosphere.

With increased demand and prices for alternative fuels will come the destruction of many more forests in attempts to clear more land to grow fuel. this is already happening in brazil.

we will all burn in hell but hopefully we can jump out of a few more planes first.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[pilatus_p 0]

Hey I still like the airship idea. One of those cool ones like in 'View to a Kill' - 15 skydivers set themselves up on the stairs, MayDay comes along and punches a button ... the stairs go flat and away you go.

Might slow lift turnaround at DZ's a bit. Climb to altitude might be a bit slow. But you can probably fit about 100 skydivers in one and serve them all first class food. Steak, chips and skydive with the MayDay stair exit. I vote for that.

And dude, cheer up. Its winter here too. Catch a movie. Have a curry and a beer. Buy a pet. Don't be sad

Ross

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[pilatus_p 0]

Just to add to the information on Hydrogen Power, looks like you guys Stateside are about to get a taste of hydrogen produced electricity ...

http://www.bpalternativenergy.com/liveassets/bp_internet/alternativenergy/next_generation_hydrogen_carson.html

Anybody from Cali on these boards?

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[Erroll 49]

Quote

the germans developped a technique to turn coal into a sort of sythetic liquid oil. .

We (South Africa) have been producing fuel from coal since the mid 1950s.

[billvon 2,396]

>Anybody from Cali on these boards?

Yep, quite a few of us.

Hydrogen is a bad idea. We don't have any. We can make it, but we need the energy to do that. Claiming hydrogen is a solution to the energy shortage is like claiming electricity is the ultimate solution to our energy problems - after all, it's perfectly clean and it comes out of the wall!

[pilatus_p 0]

You are correct - hydrogen is an 'energy transport mechanism' as opposed to a source. That is, it requires energy to release the hydrogen from the methane.

However, the energy required to separate the hydrogen is much less than what you claim by burning it (CO2 free) in a gas turbine. Think of it like the process that forms petrol from crude oil - yes we put energy in the form of heat and pressure into the process, and we come out with all sorts of products, one of them being petrol. But the energy we put into that process is nowhere near what we get from burning petrol. It is an energy CONVERSION process, not energy release. The release comes when you burn the hydrogen, carbon free.

Yes we need to find that energy to separate it. One of the major advantages of setting an experimental plant up in Cali is that you have much more sun there than Scotland (home of the first hydrogen power station). For this reason, Californian solar power can be used to provide the energy to separate the hydrogen, and in terms of plant size, hydrogen will provide more energy per square foot than the equivalent area of solar panels.

Even if solar can't be used, the carbon footprint of burning fossil fuels to run the hydrogen generation process is far less than burning fossil fuels as a primary source of power, for the same reasons as highlighted above.

The technology is there, and it works. But as a business it is still developing. This developmental stage is going to cost money in real terms. As a mass power source, it will not be profitable for some time - however, we need atmospheric carbon-free energy solutions now and I for one am glad that so many opportunities exist - hydrogen being just one of them - and are being invested in.

There is also a proposal by German scientists to construct massive Concentrated solar Power fields in 0.5% of the worlds desert area, which it is claimed will provide all the energy we need. You already have one in Cali in the Mojave desert.

There are many options out there, and like any new technology it is a matter of time before it can be done as cheaply as the 'established' methods. Whether a person thinks that oil companies are acting out of pure financial self-interest, or genuinely have a concern for the world they inhabit, one thing is for sure: We NEED low carbon fuels NOW, and that means starting the move away from burning heavy fossil fuels in their natural state, or replacing them completely.

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[billvon 2,396]

>For this reason, Californian solar power can be used to provide the energy
>to separate the hydrogen, and in terms of plant size, hydrogen will provide
>more energy per square foot than the equivalent area of solar panels.

Right. But if you have the solar-electric plant, it's a lot more efficient to use the electrical transmission grid (efficiency on the order of 95%) to send it to consumers than to use it to create compressed hydrogen from water (efficiency on the order of 30%) and then use the fuel later. If you use the electricity directly, that means you don't have to run a natural gas powered plant to generate the same power - and you have that extra natural gas available to run cars and buses. (Plus which, the network to store and distribute that natural gas is already in place.)

About the only way hydrogen makes sense is if you can produce it in high-temperature nuclear power plants (HTGR's) via thermal dissociation of water. When part of a combined-cycle thermal power plant that's reasonably efficient. That still doesn't solve the problems of storage and transport, but it's a start.

[pilatus_p 0]

OK, here's how the numbers stack up.

The Scottish Hydrogen station receives 400 million standard cubic feet a day of gas from offshore platforms. 70 million of this gives a hydrogen power station producing 350MW, enough power for 250,000 UK homes every day and the equivalent of ALL THE SOLAR FIELDS ALREADY IN CALIFORNIA added together. All this in the area already occupied by the original coal fired power station.

Power transmission efficiency is 95%, but solar power generation is only around 30% efficient. OK its 30% of infinity, I concede that point, but what it does mean is the need for much greater numbers of solar panels. This requires vast areas of land and - here's the kicker - consistent levels of solar radiation (good for Cali, bad for UK)

The carbon dioxide reduction of this hydrogen station is 1.8 million tonnes a year, equivalent to removing 300,000 cars from the road.

Now I am not saying that that makes it the better idea. I would rather see the solar-in-the-worlds-deserts solution widely applied, even though I know that installing the distribution networks to these places would be an immense task. I think we need as many energy solutions as we can get, not just one catch-all solution, and CSP may well provide a huge part of that if the world listens to these German scientists. Its likely that each country's alternative energy solution will be unique and tailored to its needs and perhaps have bits of wind, wave, solar, hydrogen, tidal and nuclear. But the upshot is, we prduce electricity without producing the carbon.

So hydrogen being one of those solutions - as you rightly say, the gas distribution network already exists. It is designed for methane, it can be adapted for hydrogen. The power stations already exist, and so do the local electricity distribution networks. CSP would not work in the UK and many northern parts of europe - theres not enough sun. Because of this, plus the energy per unit area value, and the fact that we would no longer be releasing the carbon from the methane we have, hydrogen power is the more immediately applicable solution and is why it is receiving a lot of R&D attention from major global companies.

This does not address transport though, I agree.The logical extension of the above argument is to find that way of making a hydrogen fuelled or electric car.
If we truly want to cut greenhouse emissions, we can't keep burning methane - it releases CO2, and its reduction is the whole aim of the technology (although the use of an H2 plant or solar energy gives us more headroom to have CO2 producing cars of course...)

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[billvon 2,396]

>It is designed for methane, it can be adapted for hydrogen.

Not easily. Problems:

1) Hydrogen is far more explosive than methane, and ignites at a lower temperature and over a wider range of concentrations. That means significantly different designs for valves, pumps, compressors etc.

2) It's a lot less dense. If you use the same pipelines for hydrogen that you used for methane, you can only get 38% of the energy through that you used to. So you either have to get people to use 1/3 the energy they're using now, or build a bigger pipeline.

3) It's lower molecular weight means you can't use the same seals. It leaks through _everything._ You'd have to either replace or eliminate most of the seals in the gas network.

>I agree.The logical extension of the above argument is to find that
>way of making a hydrogen fuelled or electric car.

They both exist, but both currently have the same problem - limited range. In addition, the only ways we know of storing hydrogen (as a hydrate, as a compressed gas or as a liquid) take huge amounts of energy to accomplish.

>If we truly want to cut greenhouse emissions, we can't keep burning
> methane - it releases CO2 . . .

Right, and biological production of methane re-absorbs that same CO2. The goal is not zero emissions of CO2 but rather zero _net_ emissions of CO2 from any technology we pick.

[pilatus_p 0]

The thrust of R&D has been on making a hydrogen power plant that will provide electricity for homes and businesses, not on piping that hydrogen to homes around the country. Solving just this electricity part of the puzzle is equivalent to removing 70% of the carbon production (figure for Europe).

I am driving at a solution for electricity, as used in businesses and homes. The idea of being able to pipe hydrogen around to homes would be nice, but this is not currently as important as the very real ability to use it to produce carbon-free power in power stations. In this regard, the most important transport networks that already exist are the methane delivery ones from reservoirs to the land (or from on land reservoir to power station).

I think we will have to agree to disagree on your bio-fuels point. For it to work you would have to first calculate the precise CO2 absoprtion capabilities of the worlds natural decarbonisation system - the forests and the seas. Once you have that figure, you must limit world energy consumption (by all available means) by the CO2 that burning biofuels releases, so it matches this figure - and this is vastly in excess of what our current natural system can cope with.

Remember - the average forest or field is designed to deal with CO2 production from normal decomposition of biomass and respiration of living creatures in and around it - low rate, low volume. Now you set fire to those creatures or biomass, or fuels derived thereof. Burning those same things is high rate, high volume and so the natural systems simply cannot cope with it.

Truthfully - biofuels are not a balanced system and the net CO2 is not zero. You seem to be saying that for each plant used for biofuel, another one will be there to remove the CO2 you get from burning that fuel. But if you burn a whole tree, the one next to it will not suddenly suck up all the CO2 you just produced. It will float into atmosphere, and even if you could put that tree in a box with all the produced CO2 you just made, it would take a very long time to absorb it. Now continue burning more trees around it before it even has a chance to get started, and you see why we have an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. Nature's CO2 elimination strategy never ran to setting fire to stuff 24 hours a day, all over the world.

Limited range on electric cars? Just an idea - replace petrol stations with battery exchange centres. Roll up, pluck out the old one(s), slot in a new one(s). You drive off and they charge your old one(s) again ready for the next guy. And with that battery power coming from carbon free electricity, the car is running carbon free too. Again, Just an idea: The real prize is that 70% CO2 reduction through eliminating electricity from raw fossil fuels.

This is maximum thread drift.

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

[billvon 2,396]

>The thrust of R&D has been on making a hydrogen power plant that
> will provide electricity for homes and businesses, not on piping that
> hydrogen to homes around the country. Solving just this electricity
> part of the puzzle is equivalent to removing 70% of the carbon
> production (figure for Europe).

Right. But what I'm saying is that we can convert natural gas to hydrogen, or use electricity to convert water to hydrogen - OR we can just use the electricity or methane directly. We don't have any hydrogen, which means we have to make it, which means using energy.

>Truthfully - biofuels are not a balanced system and the net CO2 is
> not zero. You seem to be saying that for each plant used for
> biofuel, another one will be there to remove the CO2 you get from
> burning that fuel. But if you burn a whole tree, the one next to it will
> not suddenly suck up all the CO2 you just produced.

Not quite. Most trees/plants do not burn; they decompose aerobically, producing CO2 in the process. The biofuel cycle takes that carbon-rich material and uses anaerobic bacteria to produce methane. That methane (CH4) is then burned to generate water and CO2.

As long as you confine your methane usage to biofuel production, you can't generate any more carbon than is in the plant material originally - and thus you don't add CO2 to the atmosphere when you look at the cycle overall. They never balance exactly, but then they don't have to. As long as you're not doing alchemy and turning iron into carbon or something, the amount of carbon available to the biosphere remains approximately constant. That's why burning fossil fuels is a problem - because we're taking carbon that's been out of circulation for billions of years and re-introducing it to the environment, rather than using carbon that's already in the environment. Outside of man getting involved, the only way that happened in the past was through massive vulcanism (which also caused climactic upheavals.)

>The real prize is that 70% CO2 reduction through eliminating
>electricity from raw fossil fuels.

That's a good goal, but I would argue that replacing all the world's coal/oil/methane burning power plants with nuclear plants would do the trick without hydrogen. And we have uranium; we don't have hydrogen.