Reply To: The recent "discovery" of Dark Matter

[Frenetic]

Transmute wrote: I already covered the fuel system, just line it with plastic or corrosion resistent metals, it not expensive and they are alreayd doing it.
—
I asked you to look it up, but here are some links:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/6000/6920v.htm
http://www.evworld.com/archives/testdrives/gmshev.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UDO/is_12_14/ai_72765923
As I mention before there no variable load on the turbine, its more fuel efficient then a diesel or gasoline engine in such a hybrid configuration. The exhaust gas is not a problem for a <40kw turbine, you can run bleed air over the exhaust system if need, turbines already do this to keep cool, or even better with such hot exhaust you can run a thermocouple or steam turbine and increase the fuel efficiency to up to 50% making it as efficient at a fuel cell, but less massive (though more complex) and more fuel variable. They are already working on making combine cycle engines with steam or thermalcouple enhancements, do I need to provide links?

All of those units are experimental and no where near the final engineering stage. We could start building diesel engine driven plug-in hybrid units next year if Congress would act. Additionally, all three of the examples you showed me are driven by methane or propane, not ethanol. Both methane and propane are vastly more efficient fuels than ethanol.

I do understand about waste heat recovery systems. I have already built more than one co-generation plant, okay? Jamming all that stuff into an automobile that will not be an out and out threat to your average driver or mechanic is just wee bit down the road from now. We need to do something TODAY. Right now. Preferably we should be doing something yesterday. Yet, here we are, still yakkity yakking about stuff that isn’t ready to be pulled off the blooming drawing boards. Can you show me where find a Seebeck device capable of handling the temperatures coming out of a turbine? I don’t know of one that exists yet and their conversion rate is about fifteen percent, not that different from the better grade of solar cells, rather than fifty percent often claimed for them.

There will ALWAYS be a variable load on any ground vehicle and the turbine driving it, whether it be direct drive or turbine over electric will be required to deal that variation in load. It cannot be avoided. That is the way the physics work. Anyone telling you otherwise has not thought the matter all the way through. Thermodynamic processes are notoriously unforgiving and inflexible.
—

Transmute wrote: I’m already aware of the limitation of biofuels (see fusion oil thread) biodiesel are limited feedstock choices, we can make ethanol (or better yet butanol) on a much wider varity of feedstocks, most importently agriculture waste! How much land is required for soybeans to biodiesel? You want cheap energy to replace oil first things first get all the enregy we waste in our waste (hey that kind of catchy). I’m not against biodiesel, i’m just for what products we can most efficently extract for what we get, biodiesel from soy will have its place, ethanol (or butanol) from cellulose waste will have its, methane from garbage will have its, etc, unless cheap fusion comes around then its everything into oil.

I have not nor will I ever advocate using land in agricultural production for the production of fuels. That rules out the idea of using soy beans for the production of bio-diesel. Down that road lies madness and starvation. Only Archer-Daniels-Midland could favor such a thing.

So let’s talk about cellulose as an important and overlooked resource, shall we? As it happens, I agree with you on this point. However, the chemistry involved in extracting ethanol from those materials is wasteful. A far better approach would be to convert the cellulose into methane. The yield per pound of feedstock is much better in this process and you get a vastly superior fuel. Granted, methane is best used for stationary power, but as it happens, we really do have a need for cleaner stationary power. Better yet, when you convert cellulose to methane you fix a lot of nitrogen in the solids left over from the reaction and that makes an excellent fertilizer. Not only would this greatly improve the economics of the digester, but it would also reduce the amount of fertilizers we would need to make in plants burning hydrocarbons. We get a triple whammy out of “cellulosic” methane that we cannot get out of ethanol.

You do realize that we are fellow travelers, you and I? All we are arguing about here is which route to take.

Your turn.