Homepage Forums Economic Forums Renewable synthetic hydrocarbons from sea-based focus fusion reactors.

This topic contains 23 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  dennisp 7 years ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3397

    Brian H
    Member

    I speak of practical “Peak Oil” in the sense of what we will actually end up using, especially given the contribution of FF, not to mention massive untouched resources like the Bakken.

    As for Obama, ever read his mentors, Alinsky and Ayers? Cloward-Piven? I suggest you do.
    And I’d be interested in your personal rationalization for the $1M he’s spent on 3 law firms preventing anyone from seeing his actual signed original medical birth certificate. Or any of his school records. Or immigration (from Indonesia) files. Or IL Senate records. Or financial records, including the funding of his advanced education (brokered by El Mansour, vile anti-American Islamist). Etc.

    #3401

    Duke Leto
    Member

    Yes… You are indeed a complete and utter loony.

    #3403

    Tasmodevil44
    Member

    Politics, politics, politics …… both radical right – wing conservative and radical left – wing liberal …… how depressing :-S Is’nt all this talk about political smear campaigns, Obama and extremist nutcase types getting a little off the main subject ?

    #3407

    Brian H
    Member

    Duke Leto wrote: Yes… You are indeed a complete and utter loony.

    Hm, no reading, no answers, just a juvenile ad hominem insult. So sad.

    #3408

    Duke Leto
    Member

    I’m sorry, Brian, if you seriously believe that Ayers is a “mentor” of Obama, then you are getting your information from a source with an agenda. I might just as easily claim that Oral Roberts is a “mentor” to McCain because McCain spoke at his university during the campaign.

    If you want to criticize Obama, and I admit to being a supporter of his, why not criticize the nascent cult of personality that’s developing around him? That makes me and Paul Krugman feel more than a bit uncomfortable. Why are you bothering to hammer on virtually non-existent ties to some penny-enny 60s radical who did most of his crimes when Obama was an 8 year old boy?

    You a seem intelligent enough, but you are parroting talking points from American conservative talk radio on Obama and Global Warming as if they are gospel truth. You’re clearly not subjecting the information you are getting to any kind of rational test before taking it on board.

    I see no reason to waste my time researching the rest of your assertions when that ludicrous Ayers canard is at the centerpiece of them.

    #3474

    Aeronaut
    Member

    All I’m going to say about Obama is that he’s a charismatic leader in a time when that is sorely needed. While I didn’t vote for him, he is my President, so there is no point in bickering about that drift.

    I researched the US energy consumption sources and conversion efficiencies last week for a special report aimed at selling FF by the numbers. The idea is to repackage that core data for a relentless article marketing campaign aimed at highly emotionally charged issues such as global warming, energy independence, and clean water for developing countries. Here’s the breakdown:

    40% of US energy comes from oil, much of it for transportation fuels;
    60% from electricity

    Charging and discharging batteries is 90% efficient;
    Electric motors are 85% efficient;
    Burning fuels for heat is 80% efficient;
    Internal combustion engines are only 30% efficient.

    Coal provides 50% of US electricity;
    Nuclear provides 20%;
    Natural gas provides 18%;
    Other sources provide 12%;

    Due to inefficiencies of a crumbling grid, coal-fired electricity sent long distances can end up using only 10% of the BTUs used to produce it as useful electricity when you flip the switch. This means that after we divert farmland and water to growing bio fuels to burn for thermo-electric power we should be locked up in the loony bin.

    Sure, wind and solar have free fuel. Once we’ve paid for the installation and accepted their problems with uneven supply and transmission losses through the grid. They are best suited for powering a house with direct current (RV) appliances through a bank of batteries.

    Anybody who ignores the bigger picture of how many BTUs are required to produce and deliver a kilowatt hour, let alone how many gallons of water and how many tons of carbon dioxide are produced in the entire process is leaving himself open to merciless ridicule in a skeptical press ruled by entrenched special interests.

    #11129

    dennisp
    Member

    Back to the first post about making methanol…the oil companies have an efficient process already commercialized to turn methanol into gasoline. If you can make methanol, you can take one more step and keep all the vehicles and infrastructure we have right now.

    #11131

    zapkitty
    Member

    dennisp wrote: Back to the first post about making methanol…the oil companies have an efficient process already commercialized to turn methanol into gasoline. If you can make methanol, you can take one more step and keep all the vehicles and infrastructure we have right now.

    … and again, why?

    #11133

    dennisp
    Member

    Because you can keep fast cars with roaring V8 engines, pipelines, and gas stations. Just replace the oil wells with fusion-powered gasoline factories and you’re done. If you want to go electric, you have to get the car companies to retool, install an upgraded electric grid and recharging stations, and wait for everybody to buy new cars.

    But before doing any of that you have to invent the battery technology that has been “just around the corner” for decades…as energy dense as gasoline, charges in minutes (somehow…that’s a *lot* of current flow), and cheap enough so the car doesn’t cost much more. And it has to use common materials so we can make enough of them. Personally I’ve stopped believing in every new battery breakthrough that hits the news.

    Or maybe you mean, why not stick with methanol? Now you’re still using a liquid fuel, you don’t have the efficiency advantages of electric motors, but you still have to change out the cars and infrastructure, to convert to a fuel with half the energy density. When you could take one last step and make things a lot easier on yourself.

    Maybe methanol-powered fuel cells? Improves your vehicle efficiency, but you still have to change your infrastructure, and fuel cells are still really expensive. Waiting for cheap fuel cells is like waiting for good batteries.

    Major change to the fuel distribution network a giant chicken-and-egg problem. You might need government involvement to get it done. Sticking with gasoline, all you need is to be able to produce it cheaper than the oil companies can drill it, and they’ll do it on their own. Focus fusion can easily accomplish that.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.