NationStates Jolt Archive

I realize this doesn't really belong here, but I need everyone to read it...so it's here.

Exerpt from the Chardonayan Journal of Science

This article is designed to try to explain how different fuels work, and what makes them effective

Hydrogen
Making hdrogen
Hydrogen is a fuel that, per unit mass, has an ectermely high energy releace when combusted with oxygen into water. It is, however, a terrible fuel, and hard to make.

But wait, I here you cry. You just said that hydrogen and oxygen can be combined to make water. According to what I learned in chemistry, that means it works the other way, and it would only take the same amount of energy as it took to make the water because, according to thermodynamics, energy/mass can not be created or destroyed, just turned into another form.

You are right. However, some energy is lost as waste heat in all reactions. Taking water, removing the hydrogen, and then burning the hydrogen, and so on takes a LOT of energy, electrolocis is terribly inefficient. A far better way is to take gasoline and strip off the hydrogen. That takes way less energy... but you need the gasoline.

Transporting the Hydrogen

Ok, so assuming you understand that, have devoted a nuclear power plant or two to making hydrogen, you still have a problem. How do you store it? Although hydrogen has an amazing energy density by mass (about 40000 joules per kilo as compared to the next best one, propane with only about 14000 joules per kilo, or gasoline with 13500 joules per kilo) it has an absolutely abysmal energy density by volume. At standard atmospheric pressure, it would take more than 3000 liters of H2 gas to equal the energy of one litre of gasoline. If you pressurize it to 150 bar, the safes maximum for pressurized containers (after that, the exponencial pressure/volume curve becomes too shallow to get any real effect) it would still take about 22 times the amount of H2 as Gasoline. Not to mention that another term for any pressurized container at 150 bar is 'bomb,' ignoring the fact that it's filled with explosive gas too. Liquified hydrogen still takes 3 liters per liter of Gas, and it needs to be supercooled, which takes energy. The only reasonable solution would be to combine the hydrogen with another element, like almuminum, and then have the oxygen 'burn' that in the fuel cell. but gasoline is still more efficient. An interesting note: there is more hydrogen in a liter of gasoline than there is in a liter of STP H2.

Fuel Cells

This is how a fuel cell works... It takes hydrogen, and combines it with oxygen to make water. But it performs this combustion without much waste heat, which is why scientists think they will become efficient engines. I hate fuel cell technology, and I will explain why.

It's not so much the tech that I hate as the misunderstandings. Fuel cells don't run on nothing, and they don't run on water either. THey run on hydrogen. 'But wait' I hear you cry. "I've got you there. There's hydrogen in water' This is very true. But since water is the exhaust, a fuel cell can't run on it any more than a car can run on CO2. To see why, check out the Hydrogen section above.

Why are they efficient? Because there are no moving parts. This means that more of the energy being produced is converted into electricity. A friend of mine is currently working on a fuelcell at a lab. it's a fuel cell that burns methane at 800c, and it works pretty well. It's still too big to fit in a car. But the best thing about fuel cells is that they rarely break. The one my friend is helping make is rated for 20 years... how many gas generators last that long? That's why fuel cells are good. In industrial applications, they are wonderful. But no tank, or car, will ever last that long, so it's a waste to use a fuel cell on it.

Batteries and compressed air
Batteries are worse than hydrogen in terms of energy dencity. Don't even talk to me about compressed air. If you can't get the power out of compressed hydrogen, there's no way you can get it out of normal compressed air. Again, to get the energy, you need the energy.

Ethanol
Ethanol is good... a fairly efficient fuel. Good to drink. but you can't run a country on it. Energy dencity is still far below gasoline. It actually takes more energy to grow the corn/sugarbeats/yams, process them, and distill them than you get out of them. it simply can't work. Turning waste into ethanol is fine, but don't devote your fields to it.

Solar power and Wind farms
It's an interesting fact too that it actually takes more energy to make a solar panel than the panel will collect in it's lifetime. The only good solar power plants are the ones that use fields of mirrors to beam light at a glass water containers which boil and turn a turbine. But unless you have a few square miles to spend on mirrors... Also, consider. When do you need the most energy? WHEN THE SUN ISN"T SHINING!!!

Wind is bad too, area-wise, and it's hard to find good places for wind farms where the wind actually blows steadily. They also don't really generate much power.

Geothermal
Geothermal is good... but if the geography is right for it, you have other problems. like volcanos and earthquakes.

Nuclear
Nuclear power is great. in new reactors, the chance of an accident is really small. Waste disposal is the only problem... and it's a big problem. Current;y, chardonay stackes containers of waste in the desert, and when costs drop, may even send it out into orbit...

In ships, nuclear power isn't so great. Sure it allows the ships to operate indefinately, but it actually costs more in fuel to operate a nuclear powered ship than a standard one, and the chance of catestropic physical damage triggering a meltdown is much higher.

Anyone who uses fusion is futuretech, by definition.

My solution
The only real saving when it comes to energy, im my opinion, is hybred gas-electric. You run a gas motor at constant revs (engines have a very efficient sweet spot, too low or too high and you lose fuel efficiency) which powers batteries which power an electric motor. When nesisary, the gas engine can take over entirely, or the engine can be shut off and the vehicle run entirely on electrical power.... rendering it effectively silent and able to work underwater.... DCA is working on some designs.... but still there are problems, mainly of power. You get the energy more efficiently, but most electric motors aren't powerful enough to negotiate major opsticals. But we'll see. It's the best alternative.



I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes with this... if you are far future tech, I expect you've solved these problems.... but for us in the modern/early future.... they aren't solved yet and won't be in our lifetimes....

of course if you have no oil or ready acess to petrolium products then you really have to chose soemthing else...

As to the solar power thing about when the energy is required, why don't you just biuld soem really massive batteries? or rahter twin direction hydro plants like the hollow mountian in argyle, sure you lose a little energy pumping the water up hill but it does troe a fantastic amount of energy that you can realease as desired.


Actually the ideal repalcmet for petrol is grade A coconut oil. It burns far cleaner releases a bit more energy and works brilliantly in conventional petrol engines...

I Crookfur we use an "undisclosed" alcohol (meaning i really can't be bothered deciding which one but msot likely ethanol) which we generate from jsut about anything: all our organic waste goes into massive biochem reactors and plastics go into specialised preperation units we also use feed crops but buy them very cheap from various sources. of course this is only used for cars/tanks the rest of nation runs on nuclear, wind and really massive tidal batteries that harness the full force of the atlantic...

Batteries don't have enough energy density and can't store the energy long enough. Reverse hydro takes too much power.

Refining plant matter into alcohol actually takes more power than it produces with current technology and economies of scale, but that could improve. The main problem is that alcohol isn't very energy dence either.

Tidal batteries don't provide enough energy compared to the expence of creating them. Wind isn't area efficient.

I use nuclear power to power my cities and industries and farms.

Area effency isn't alwaya problem ;)


And as for the cost of thing, well there is always the NS claim that "we make like bijillions of them everyday so we do it super cheap".

I never said my methods were cheap but they work for me :)

Ever see how much energy you can get with dams?

The flood control and reservouir at Wye produces enough power for the entire city. Granted, we don't use that much due to some magitek . . .

yes, I do know, however, they are difficult to make and cause massive ecological damage.

Anyone who uses fusion is futuretech, by definition.


I would disagree. Fusion power will likely be perfected in the next 20-50 years... meaning it's post-modern at most.

For really compact stuff like briefcase fusion reactors or cold fusion, I would say future tech.

But big bulky fusion reactors? Nah.

Axis Nova

It is possible to improve the efficiency of electrolysis by splitting water at its resonant frequency, but whatever.

Also there are many new ways to store hydrogen in large quantities, now that nano engineering/production is coming into play. And what with the news that it may be possible to power a house on a new type of fuel cell the size of a few cans of soda.....

Those fuel cells you're talking about are currently over a meter tall and need a steady supply of methane... and they run very hot, and can't deliver more than 1 kilowatt of energy. and they cost $20000 per unit. It's not the fuel cells I have a problem with though. Really, it's the lack of a reliable fuel. And though nanotech may in the future make hydrogen more easily stored, again, it won't be for quite some time. Right now, the only good way to store it is as Aluminum Hydride. And even then, the hydrogen will never meet the $0.33 cents per kilowatthour of pebble bed reactors. Methane costs more.

Though it's possible to create hydrogen more efficiently, it will always be a net energy sink.

Fusion power... I'm skeptical that we'll ever break even with that. But alright, someone RPing 2050 tech could use a fusion reactor without too much bother. They'd still be big, but it might be possible.

Lookup SOFCs (thin film solid oxide fuel cells), they are promising high power density and run cool.

Also bubble fusion could be possible. And nanoengineering(not nanite robots though :() is coming in leaps and bounds....

Sonofusion could work in a 2050 nation also.

As for us, we run off straight old oil and gasoline, with nuclear power when possible.

In order to reform methane into H2 and Co, it needs to operate at 635 degrees celcius. The ones you mention, I admit, might be better, and I can see them replacing batteries... but tey are still running at over 400 degrees C. But they won't ever match the dencity of gasoline. Not in a long while, anyway.

And yes... those fusion technologies might be possible. however, the lack of ANY positive verifyable results makes me skeptical about the chances of fusion power being used in the near future.

Ever see the movie Chain Reaction, thats all about the splitting of water into hydrogen for fuel.

Anyway, There are already Hydrogen powered cars in the real world. There are very fuel but they are there and they create no pollution and run effieciantly. They use a fuel cell, but use liquid hydrogen in place of the hydrogen gas. Only problem is the car needs a refigeration unit to keep the hydrogen liquid. The main reason why they are not in use is because there are no hydrogen refueling stations.It be like having a regular car, but no places to get gas.

Very nice rant Chardonay, interesting and explains the strengths and weaknesses of almost all power sources.

Liquid hydrogen has a lower energy density than gasoline too... it takes more liquid hydrogen topower a car than gasoline. And though the fuel cells themselves are very efficient, you need to get the power to make the waterfrom somewhere... power plants. Which only run at about 40% efficiency.

That refridgeration unit (which chryogenically cools the hydrogen) uses up too much energy tobe effective.

Heh, I pretty much agree with you, Chardonay

Chellis runs on 85% nuclear energy, as uranium is so plentiful in nationstates and with these newer, safer reactors, we arent worried about accidents.

For nuclear waste, we bury most of it in an island that we conquered a long time ago, after it was nuked(some total newb). Theres not much around it, its uninhabited and unlivable, except for on protected dock, which a naval battle group protects. We have nuclear waste dug very deep, which isnt too close to the surface but defidentally affects the surface.

Sending it into space is expensive, and we are trying to find a way to make it cheaper.

Pay poor countries to store it for you. Not like the UN can stop you.

Axis Nova

A 250x250km island, who knows how deep... I can store there for years :P

I have a means of de-radiating it, but you people are too skeptical to accept something that isn't working absolutely perfectly right now(Chardonay :P)

Lol, it doesn't need to work PERFECTLY...

We use pebblebed reactors, so our reactor fuel is already encapsulated in a carbon shell. It's also un-recoverable, because it gets 'burned up' more effectively than in watercooled plants. Aditionally, it can't be refined into weapons grade material because of pesky little plutonium isotopes... Which makes it all perfectly safe to store. Some people want to use our space elevators to take it up... but it's too expencive.

(And Space Elevators are perfectly possible... if someone wanted to build one, it could be done in three years for only $6 billion=)

I have a means of de-radiating it, but you people are too skeptical to accept something that isn't working absolutely perfectly right now(Chardonay :P)

mind elucidating? Or TG me the method? Curiosity, the bane of me...

In Palladia, we use fusion as our primary power source, followed by fuel cells and nuclear batteries.

Fusion is catalyzed by a small antimatter reaction. After this initial energy expenditure, the reactor is self-sustaining and the antimatter generation cost is easily recovered. Micro-core fusion is also used, and is a fusion reaction characterized by the timed release of tiny amounts of fuel into the reactor, which is typically used to power high-energy lasers and such.

Fuel cells are reasonably similar to modern cells, though smaller and more efficient. Hydrogen is stored in a carbon nanotube matrix, allowing for high density fuel storage. Fuel cells are as small as a stack of 4 DVD cases (MPU-1) and as large as small cars (MPU-9), producing electrical power with a great volume:power ratio. These are usually used for civilian vehicles and military machines.

Nuclear batteries use small pieces of uranium or plutonium sealed in a canister that converts alpha radiation into electrical power. Spent batteries (which pop up every eighty years or so) are either recycled for military use or stored on one of many waste asteroids. These are usually in electronic devices and other small, cordless gadgetry.

Of course, Palladia is near-future + space tech, but all of this stuff is availible now or will be avilible soon (except micro-core fusion, I just made that up). :)

And the antimatter. No way to massproduce or store it now, really.

And the fact that your Fusion reactor isn't a net heat sink like all modern ones =)

Chardonay ...OOC by the way.
What about organic fuels?
The clean burning diesels that run on Vegtable oil or hemp oil(no weed jokes please).
I realize you cant power cities with them but they are an effective replacement for pertroleum arent they?
Like running a biodiesel/elecetric hybrid.
http://www.biodiesel.com/theFuel.htm ---good one.

http://www.ybiofuels.org/bio_fuels/history_biofuels.html
http://www.biodiesel.org/

Anyway what are your thoughts?
And no I am not some smoked out pot head.
I dispise Petroleum monopoly on energy.

Chardonay missed another viable option for energy production. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion using Hydrogen as a means of transport. OTEC is viable and running off the coasts Hawaii and Japan in 2004.

OTEC is very similar to the type of solar collection that Chardonay advocates as efficient (the boiling water method). OTEC works anywhere you can find a 25-30 degree Fahrenheit difference in temperature between the surface of the ocean and the ocean water 1000 meters down (any semi-tropical region). The pressure and temperature differences between the surface and the trough cause the active fluid (water in open cycle OTEC, ammonia in closed cycle OTEC) to flash evaporate/boil. The steam then rises to the surface of the cycle spins a low-pressure turbine, producing electricity.

OTEC effectively uses the oceans as giant solar batteries. They store the majority of the solar energy that strikes our planet. The only energy input needed to make an OTEC cycle work is a gas turbine pump to start the cycle. After the cycle is started, the plant is self-sustaining. In 1997 (the last time I looked), the estimated cost for building a large scale OTEC plant was 100 million dollars for a 100 megawatt plant.

There are two potential drawbacks to OTEC. First, the existing plants only operate on a very small scale. They prove that the process works but cannot test the possible operating costs of a 100 megawatt plant. (Currently the United States DOE advocates building a large scale plant off the coast of Hawaii to prove its viability and longevity to private interests.) Second, while OTEC produces a vast amount of energy, it is difficult to transfer that energy to major population centers. Ogio advocates using Hydrogen fuel cells to fill this production gap.

In 1996 it was estimated that OTEC could supply the power for 6 billion people (the world's population) consuming energy at the rate of the average American (much higher than the world average) by using just one one thousandth of one percent of the energy stored by the oceans every day.

In Ogio we have elected to build a flotilla of Open Cycle OTEC plants using Hydrogen Fuel cells as the medium of energy transport. We choose Open Cycle because of its many beneficial byproducts which provide desalinated water, assist with coastal agriculture, and reduce our overall dependence on inorganic chemicals. We would be happy to share our technology with our peaceful neighbors.

(Note: all of the technical information regarding OTEC described above can be found easily on the web, including at government websites, or in several books that I don't recall the citation for off the top of my head but would be happy to supply to anyone who wants them. Just telegram me if you want more info on OTEC.)

WHEN THE SUN ISN"T SHINING!!!

A very common misconception, do you suddenly find yourself walking around in the daytime and a cloud covers the sun causing it day to become night? I didn't think so, currently existing solar collectors are capable of working efficiently when the sun is behind clouds. As long as its daylight they work.
To get around the size issue one alternative is to fit all suitable buildings with panels to supplement and in the case of some homes potentially provide all its energy requirements.

My nation runs on reliable fossil fuels and nuclear energy, the advertising was just so convincing.

And the antimatter. No way to massproduce or store it now, really.

And the fact that your Fusion reactor isn't a net heat sink like all modern ones =)
Yeah, that too. :D

Tom Joad: I wasn't talking about cloud cover, I was refering to axle tilt. Winter. In canada, you only get a max of 6 hours of light in the day in winter, and that's the time of year when you really need the power. Also, a solar panel currently uses more energy in its manufacturing than it will ever produce in it's lifetime.

OCT is certainly possible, but I'm not impressed really... It's just a heat engine working at about 5% efficiency (and , given the heat difference, that's the absolute maximum efficiency assuming no energy is lost during the generating process... to find the efficiency of a heat engine, devide the difference between the hot and cold by the cold). You would need to run a massive amount of water through to actually acheive anything. And hydrogen is not a viable energy storage method for the reasons I outlined earier... inefficient to produce, highly explosive, and difficult to move.

Biodiesel is certainly possible... but devoting large tracts of land to producing fuel is inefficent, it's more efficent to grow cash crops, then buy fuel. Biodeisel also has a much lower energy dencity than standard deisel... and all the cars using it would need to switch to deisel and need to deal with the higher maintanence costs, the higher fuel costs, louder engines, and the inability to start on cold mornings. Biodeisel I see as an effective supliment to normal deisel using waste vegetable oil, especially in large vehicles like trucks, but will never replace either standard deisel or gasoline.

What is the power ratio in diesel vs LNG vs OCT?

The way I see it, fuel cells are the energy source of the future