Skip to first unread message
BlackTalon
Dec 11, 2012, 10:35:58 AM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Keith Rogers
Dec 11, 2012, 12:57:02 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Interesting.. Scrolling through their FAQ, they have some strange quotes on efficiency. It looks like they initially are claiming 30% for conversion of renewable:fuel. Then there's this " 1 unit in for 9 units out" which has me questioning what they consider a unit to be. I'm a fan of fuel cells in the long run but makes sense to me that synthetic gasoline would serve as a nice transition and long term energy diversity solution.
"Our development work in the Demonstrator gives us confidence that even a 1-tonne a day plant will deliver figures better than 3 units of (renewable) energy in to one unit out in the highly usable form of liquid fuel. Across the whole system including a dedicated wind farm for example and over the 20+ year life of a plant we would expect a ratio of 1 unit in for 9 units out."
"Our development work in the Demonstrator gives us confidence that even a 1-tonne a day plant will deliver figures better than 3 units of (renewable) energy in to one unit out in the highly usable form of liquid fuel. Across the whole system including a dedicated wind farm for example and over the 20+ year life of a plant we would expect a ratio of 1 unit in for 9 units out."
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:35 AM, BlackTalon <gfet...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Arch Reactor" group.
To post to this group, send email to arch-r...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to arch-reactor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/arch-reactor/-/7N_maIZ2OGEJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Andrew Ricke
Dec 11, 2012, 1:52:32 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Yeah, marketing people are no where close to engineers on this kind of thing.
It's a neat concept that basically is a chemical storage for energy. I can't imagine it's very efficient, but might obviously transport better for cars and moving wind energy from midwest to the coasts.
EschewObfuscation
Dec 11, 2012, 7:17:00 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Well, um... there's not much CO2 in air. I could hand em a ton of CO2 much more cheaply than extracting it from air, I just need 1/3 ton coal and a match. So it's a cute demonstration, but as a practical or even early R&D stage concept? Um, don' thin' so.
Chris Weiss
Dec 11, 2012, 7:57:39 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
they plan on using industrial exhaust, like from an ammonia plant
EschewObfuscation
Dec 11, 2012, 9:58:58 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Even so, burn fuel, make electricity, use the electricity to turn gasses into fuel. Only a politician would think that an efficient path. Doesn't mean we won't end up paying em to do it, ofc...
Chris Weiss
Dec 11, 2012, 10:01:54 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
you might want to actually read the whole thing, 'cause it seems
you're making some assumptions, and based on your assumptions, yes, it
makes no sense. your assumptions are not the in the plan though.
you're making some assumptions, and based on your assumptions, yes, it
makes no sense. your assumptions are not the in the plan though.
EschewObfuscation
Dec 11, 2012, 10:10:26 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Yes, that's always possible.
EschewObfuscation
Dec 11, 2012, 10:16:46 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Ok, followed a couple layers of links. Still looks like a way to turn $10 of electricity into $5 of fuel, but maybe they have some magic somewhere under a tarp...
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:01:54 PM UTC-6, ||cw wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:01:54 PM UTC-6, ||cw wrote:
Keith Rogers
Dec 11, 2012, 10:30:25 PM12/11/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
It's just a means of energy storage and distribution. Batteries kind of suck right now. Hydrogen is more efficient but there is no infrastructure in place (including the vehicles). Synthetic fuels derived from renewable energy that function within existing infrastructure and vehicles is potentially valuable. I think hydrogen fuel cell powered electric vehicles with hydrogen fueling stations is probably ideal based upon current options. However fuel cells are crazy expensive. If battery tech makes some massive leap, perhaps straight grid power will be the future. Maybe a combo is in the cards.. Recharge your vehicle but have hydrogen onboard for the long hauls. Regardless, all of those options are currently far more expensive than gasoline is now. Until that changes I can't see a clear path to any non hydrocarbon solution.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Arch Reactor" group.
To post to this group, send email to arch-r...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to arch-reactor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/arch-reactor/-/XAPVbdKZ270J.
EschewObfuscation
Dec 12, 2012, 12:10:24 AM12/12/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Yes, I'd like better/cheaper fuel cells. Also cheaper supercaps. Waiting is, I s'pose.
Chris Weiss
Dec 12, 2012, 8:59:46 AM12/12/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
how much is $10 of electricity when it's solar or wind generated?
EschewObfuscation
Dec 12, 2012, 12:51:40 PM12/12/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
Usually $20-$30. That's why the power utilities burn fossil fuels in heat engines.
Chris Weiss
Dec 12, 2012, 2:48:27 PM12/12/12
to arch-r...@googlegroups.com
so efficiencies will never ever improve and equipment costs will never
ever go down. Got it.
ever go down. Got it.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages