The Future of Wind Turbines? No Blades?...

[Seth]

Well, what I objected to originally, if I remember rightly, was the phrase ''fuel is energy'', which anyone with a bit of knowledge of physics would understand.
The difference between mass and energy is basic stuff. Even though they can interchange, they are not the same stuff.

No, what you pettifogged was the statement "the fuel system transmits energy" as it relates to diesel engines. Blah blah blah blah

You lie, as usual, troll :

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1611613

Wrong. Fuel is energy.

Wrong.
Ludicrously wrong.

You're kidding, right? Are you really that ignorant? Any type of fuel is merely stored solar energy waiting to be released. If it's not stored energy then it's not fuel since that's kind of the definition of "fuel."

You really don't know enough science to actually debate it with.
But you could at least stick to the truth.

Whatever. Do fuck off.

[mistermack]

Whatever. Do fuck off.

What? And leave the place at the mercy of a ''grandmaster zen troll'' ?

[pErvinalia]

Well, according to what rainbow said, the diesel doesn't contain any energy at all. it's the Oxygen that contains the energy.

Well, that's impossible because diesel is not a "catalyst" because it is consumed and changed as part of the chemical reaction. Obviously both O2 and diesel fuel contain energy in the form of molecular bonds, so to be hyper-technical, they are both "fuel" or perhaps components of "fuel"

What rainbow is explaining is that all the solar energy that was utilised by plants was 'captured' by the Oxygen atoms that were split off from CO2. So when the carbon is oxidized again via combustion, the energy comes from the oxygen.

[mistermack]

Well, according to what rainbow said, the diesel doesn't contain any energy at all. it's the Oxygen that contains the energy.

Well, that's impossible because diesel is not a "catalyst" because it is consumed and changed as part of the chemical reaction. Obviously both O2 and diesel fuel contain energy in the form of molecular bonds, so to be hyper-technical, they are both "fuel" or perhaps components of "fuel"

What rainbow is explaining is that all the solar energy that was utilised by plants was 'captured' by the Oxygen atoms that were split off from CO2. So when the carbon is oxidized again via combustion, the energy comes from the oxygen.

It's not exactly like that. It's a combination of the two.
Imagine an O2 molecule is a very strong magnet, and a carbon atom is a weak magnet, and they are some distance apart. If they come close enough together, they are attracted, and eventually bang into each other at high speed, and stick together.
The energy of that collision is released as heat. And it would take the same amount of energy to get them apart again. The energy released is a result of the combined strength of the two magnets relative to each other.
Carbon and Oxygen can combine and ''burn'' by bonding like the magnets, and giving off heat as a result.
In photosynthesis, energy from the Sun prises carbon and oxygen apart again. So if they meet up again later, they can re-combine, and the energy from the Sun can be released as heat.

In that analogue, Oxygen is like a very strong magnet, and carbon is much weaker.
Oxygen will be attracted to practically everything, carbon far less so. It's the combination of the two, which determines the energy available from the bonding.

[pErvinalia]

Well I'll let rainbow answer that. But from what he said, the energy that is required to split the CO2 into C and O2 is taken up by the O2. It's then released when O2 and C recombine in combustion.

[rainbow]

I don't even know why I'm bothering, as it will set the science conspiracy guy off on another lecture about "science", even though he totally misses the irony in that... But Oxygen isn't an energy source. If it was, we could "burn" CO2 in Oxygen, which we obviously can't*. The coal/oil/wood IS the fuel source as it is the part of the process that has stored energy over time.

*edit: I'm actually scared of that pronouncement, as someone will probably point out that it is possible.

That is true, but note that photosynthesis, which is the solar energy capture mechanism, also releases oxygen; the oxygen released depends on solar energy splitting water molecules, so, in a sense, the released oxygen has had energy added to it as well...

In fact most of the energy is held in the oxygen molecule.
...but that is just a technical factoid of no practical value. Because oxygen is readily available in the atmosphere, we don't consider it as being an energy source. It is therefore essentially free.
To get the oxygen to react, you need (usually) a fossil fuel, a hydrocarbon. That is why people consider these fuels to be the source of energy, but they are wrong.

[Seth]

I don't even know why I'm bothering, as it will set the science conspiracy guy off on another lecture about "science", even though he totally misses the irony in that... But Oxygen isn't an energy source. If it was, we could "burn" CO2 in Oxygen, which we obviously can't*. The coal/oil/wood IS the fuel source as it is the part of the process that has stored energy over time.

*edit: I'm actually scared of that pronouncement, as someone will probably point out that it is possible.

That is true, but note that photosynthesis, which is the solar energy capture mechanism, also releases oxygen; the oxygen released depends on solar energy splitting water molecules, so, in a sense, the released oxygen has had energy added to it as well...

In fact most of the energy is held in the oxygen molecule.
...but that is just a technical factoid of no practical value. Because oxygen is readily available in the atmosphere, we don't consider it as being an energy source. It is therefore essentially free.
To get the oxygen to react, you need (usually) a fossil fuel, a hydrocarbon. That is why people consider these fuels to be the source of energy, but they are wrong.

They aren't wrong so long as some part of the energy involved comes from the hydrocarbon and not the oxygen. Since you have already admitted that this is the case, it becomes a matter of determining the distribution of energy between the fuel and the oxidizer. It is not incorrect to say that the hydrocarbon is "fuel" merely because oxygen is ALSO "fuel." Without both parts, hydrocarbon and oxygen, there is no energy release.

In other words, while it's interesting to understand the details of the energy budget of such reactions, it's niggling to say that the hydrocarbon isn't "fuel" because it is, to some degree.

[JimC]

Yes, for all practical purposes, the energy we can obtain, given (almost automatically) sufficient O2 is simply proportional to the mass of the material to be oxidised. Double that mass, double the energy released. Its the hydrocarbons (or hydrogen) that we have to cart around, so the term "fuel" is pragmatically sensible.

[mistermack]

Of course it's correct to say that hydrocarbons are fuel.
The everyday meaning of fuel, is something that will burn.

What's bollocks, is to say that fuel is energy. A fuel pump is a machine for moving matter, not energy. If you don't get the distinction, then you really haven't got a clue.

[Seth]

Of course it's correct to say that hydrocarbons are fuel.
The everyday meaning of fuel, is something that will burn.

What's bollocks, is to say that fuel is energy. A fuel pump is a machine for moving matter, not energy. If you don't get the distinction, then you really haven't got a clue.

Depends on how much pettifoggery you wish to engage in. A fuel pump is a machine for moving matter, but the purpose of moving a hydrocarbon fuel is to move the energy contained therein from point A to point B, therefore a fuel pump can correctly be said to be moving energy.

[mistermack]

Of course it's correct to say that hydrocarbons are fuel.
The everyday meaning of fuel, is something that will burn.

What's bollocks, is to say that fuel is energy. A fuel pump is a machine for moving matter, not energy. If you don't get the distinction, then you really haven't got a clue.

Depends on how much pettifoggery you wish to engage in. A fuel pump is a machine for moving matter, but the purpose of moving a hydrocarbon fuel is to move the energy contained therein from point A to point B, therefore a fuel pump can correctly be said to be moving energy.

You can certainly say that. If you haven't got a clue.

[mistermack]

I have a feeling that the conventional wind turbine is a bit like the bicycle.
Nobody has come up with anything better in the last hundred years, in spite of the obvious goldmine if you could. It might be as good as it gets.

The only improvement I can think of, is if efficient ways could be found to store some of the energy, to even out power delivery. There is the prospect of doing that, using flywheel energy storage, in the future. They are being developed in the odd place, but not yet on an industrial scale. I think at the moment they are definitely very efficient, but expensive.
As the technology gets more mature, the costs should come down a lot.

[Seth]

I have a feeling that the conventional wind turbine is a bit like the bicycle.
Nobody has come up with anything better in the last hundred years, in spite of the obvious goldmine if you could. It might be as good as it gets.

The only improvement I can think of, is if efficient ways could be found to store some of the energy, to even out power delivery. There is the prospect of doing that, using flywheel energy storage, in the future. They are being developed in the odd place, but not yet on an industrial scale. I think at the moment they are definitely very efficient, but expensive.
As the technology gets more mature, the costs should come down a lot.

Once, long ago, I saw an article about a kind of "water wheel" that used solar heating to turn a large wheel that was geared to a generator. The theory was you build a large Ferris-wheel like contraption that has pressurized containers of fluid like refrigerant or butane with a low boiling point. The cylinders on opposite sides of the wheel are cross-connected with tubing. As the wheel rotates, the solar heated air or water is directed over the lower tank which is on the upswing, where it boils the fluid, driving it up to the top tank just starting the down-swing where the fluid is condensed (somehow...that was never clear, but cold water would do it) into the upper tank where it creates moment-arm thereby turning the wheel. I designed a solar-powered underground house using this idea back in the 70s, but never found out if the system was actually efficient enough to work.

One of the benefits was that with enough moment-arm substantial torque can be created at the hub, but because it's a very slow-moving system, easily maintained lubricated journal bearings like those used on railroad cars can be used rather than needing high-speed roller bearings and a carefully balanced wheel.

[mistermack]

I think solar has a lot more potential for improvement than wind. I was only referring to wind generation in my post. I'd like to see something improve on windmills, but I suspect it's not out there.
What you described sounds expensive, to build and maintain. A big ferris-type wheel would have to be well-made, to withstand storms. I doubt if it could compete now with solar photo-voltaic cells.
The growth of solar is at exponential rates, and the cost keeps coming down. If someone invents a cheap and efficient way of storing some of the energy for use in the dark, it will really take off. That's it's main problem now. Not the price of each unit of electricity, but the cost of cover for times when the sun isn't shining.

It's only the recent drop in oil and gas prices that are a drag on development, but in the long term, it's pretty inevitable that solar will get bigger and bigger.

[Seth]

I think solar has a lot more potential for improvement than wind. I was only referring to wind generation in my post. I'd like to see something improve on windmills, but I suspect it's not out there.
What you described sounds expensive, to build and maintain. A big ferris-type wheel would have to be well-made, to withstand storms. I doubt if it could compete now with solar photo-voltaic cells.
The growth of solar is at exponential rates, and the cost keeps coming down. If someone invents a cheap and efficient way of storing some of the energy for use in the dark, it will really take off. That's it's main problem now. Not the price of each unit of electricity, but the cost of cover for times when the sun isn't shining.

It's only the recent drop in oil and gas prices that are a drag on development, but in the long term, it's pretty inevitable that solar will get bigger and bigger.

The one I read about was about 20 feet tall, built essentially underground behind an earth-sheltered house. The idea was that enough torque could be generated using 100 pound cylinders of propane to turn a DC generator that would charge batteries in an off-grid home. The inventor actually built it and demonstrated that it worked at that scale.