Started By
Message
2
Posted on 4/22/15 at 2:46 pm to the808bass
You clearly don't know the history of how petroleum became 'the thing', and how such things as alocohol and hemp were destroyed as alternatives.
Adding it to the thread queue.
Adding it to the thread queue.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 2:46 pm to the808bass
I assume he's proposing using hemp as the source of sugar.
There are other issues surrounding using ethanol though. It absorbs water from the atmosphere, and while that will reduce corrosion it also lowers the energy you get out of burning it. This also presents difficulty in transporting ethanol over long distances. In cold weather (like sub 50F), you don't get enough vapor pressure to ignite the fuel. Basically, you don't have enough evaporation to burn when it hits the spark.
You also can't achieve pure ethanol from distillation, as an azeotrope exists. While you can get around it by pumping your vapor under pressure over a bed of beads to dehydrate, that's still an energy intensive process.
Also, ethanol isn't as energy dense as the hydrocarbons that make up gasoline. Though you can run higher compression ratios and actually get better efficiency than traditional gasoline. It requires developing new engines for all autos though.
He's right that ethanol can be used as an auto fuel source. There are also the downsides I mentioned and didn't mention (corrosion, energy required to produce it, ect).
What I don't understand is how anti-nuclear he is. It produces little emissions and produces tons of energy without burning hydrocarbons. There is the waste problem, but you can bury that shite in a concrete bunker. There's also the risk of catastrophic failure. It's not very likely, as long as you aren't building a plant along a fault line, but yes something going wrong has huge costs. There are saregaurds for safegaurds of safegaurds in place at any facility because of that risk, and thus you can produce a lot of energy with a large degree of safety.
There are other issues surrounding using ethanol though. It absorbs water from the atmosphere, and while that will reduce corrosion it also lowers the energy you get out of burning it. This also presents difficulty in transporting ethanol over long distances. In cold weather (like sub 50F), you don't get enough vapor pressure to ignite the fuel. Basically, you don't have enough evaporation to burn when it hits the spark.
You also can't achieve pure ethanol from distillation, as an azeotrope exists. While you can get around it by pumping your vapor under pressure over a bed of beads to dehydrate, that's still an energy intensive process.
Also, ethanol isn't as energy dense as the hydrocarbons that make up gasoline. Though you can run higher compression ratios and actually get better efficiency than traditional gasoline. It requires developing new engines for all autos though.
He's right that ethanol can be used as an auto fuel source. There are also the downsides I mentioned and didn't mention (corrosion, energy required to produce it, ect).
What I don't understand is how anti-nuclear he is. It produces little emissions and produces tons of energy without burning hydrocarbons. There is the waste problem, but you can bury that shite in a concrete bunker. There's also the risk of catastrophic failure. It's not very likely, as long as you aren't building a plant along a fault line, but yes something going wrong has huge costs. There are saregaurds for safegaurds of safegaurds in place at any facility because of that risk, and thus you can produce a lot of energy with a large degree of safety.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 2:47 pm to Duke
You should've learned by now to not speak for me.
Thanks but no thanks.
Preciate it.
Thanks but no thanks.
Preciate it.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 2:58 pm to hipgnosis
quote:
You should've learned by now to not speak for me.
I wasn't. Unless making an assumption to your point is speaking for you. A reader has do that with your posts because you practically never make a clear point.
Unless it's the nuclear discussion, but what else am I to extrapolate from your comments in this thread and others when nuclear power has been brought up?
Do you take issue to anything I stated with regard to using ethanol as a fuel source?
Posted on 4/22/15 at 4:38 pm to Duke
quote:
Do you take issue to anything I stated with regard to using ethanol as a fuel source?
Yeah. All of it.
Hemp biodiesel is not ethanol. Please, stop assuming things. You're not good at it.
I won't waste this beautiful afternoon dealing with the rest of your post.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 5:10 pm to hipgnosis
quote:
Yeah. All of it.
So you disagree with thermodynamics? Every issue I raised is related to the physical properties of ethanol. I'd like to know what you think is incorrect regarding the difficulty of separating ethanol from water, the vapor pressure of ethanol at low temperatures, and ethanol's miscibility with water.
quote:
Hemp biodiesel is not ethanol.
No shite. If that's what you wanted to discuss, why even bring ethanol into the discussion? Oh and I actually agree there's a lot of potential in using hemp for fuel.
quote:
I won't waste this beautiful afternoon dealing with the rest of your post.
I did make one terrible assumption. It was that you were interested in a discussion of the benefits and downsides of alternative energy sources.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 8:45 pm to Duke
quote:
A reader has do that with your posts because you practically never make a clear point.
He can't. Because then the flaw in his logic is laid bare within 2 to 3 posts. He can only play games and make vague statements about how little whatever person with whom he is arguing knows.
Oh? Biodiesel? Here's the problem.
Oh? Algae? Here's the problem.
Oh? Sugar? Here's the problem.
It would be more entertaining if it wasn't so predictable.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News