Beyond Fossil Fuel?
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drapes,
"I suspect the powers that be have been holding back fusion development deliberately"
I wasn't referring to the Govt, or any Govt for that matter, but the people who actually run the world. (and no, not the petrochemical industry). But that's another story altogether.
It may cost us now to kick-start a reactor-building programme again, but we'll save in the long run, as crude becomes (allegedly) more scarce and therefore expensive. Also, we'll have less need to get involved in middle eastern affairs, which can only be a bonus!
The real question (with reference to the thread title here) is whether any of the above can translate into a viable power plant for aircraft. I don't think electric motors will do it (big, heavy, expensive, massive power requirements which mean big, heavy, expensive batteries or generators or whatever). So we're looking at perhaps a Hydrogen-fuelled engine, which likely only produces enough welly burning it directly in a rocket motor. Not very practical for CivAir purposes, but I could envisage an aircraft that takes off and climbs rapidly to sub-orbital levels and glides to destination.
...or is that a space shuttle.......???
16B
"I suspect the powers that be have been holding back fusion development deliberately"
I wasn't referring to the Govt, or any Govt for that matter, but the people who actually run the world. (and no, not the petrochemical industry). But that's another story altogether.
It may cost us now to kick-start a reactor-building programme again, but we'll save in the long run, as crude becomes (allegedly) more scarce and therefore expensive. Also, we'll have less need to get involved in middle eastern affairs, which can only be a bonus!
The real question (with reference to the thread title here) is whether any of the above can translate into a viable power plant for aircraft. I don't think electric motors will do it (big, heavy, expensive, massive power requirements which mean big, heavy, expensive batteries or generators or whatever). So we're looking at perhaps a Hydrogen-fuelled engine, which likely only produces enough welly burning it directly in a rocket motor. Not very practical for CivAir purposes, but I could envisage an aircraft that takes off and climbs rapidly to sub-orbital levels and glides to destination.
...or is that a space shuttle.......???
16B
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 Blades,
I agree with you we need to start building fusion reactors again (although based on the British designs not the U.S. ones - according to friends who work in the industry the AGRs are a lot safer than PWRs). However
The schemes currently being implemented don't but the scheme put forward for a tidal barrage power-generation scheme for the Severn estuary was estimated as being capable of priding 20% of the UK electricity requirements - that is quite a lot of 'clout'. And renews itself four times a day (twice in, twice out).
I agree with you we need to start building fusion reactors again (although based on the British designs not the U.S. ones - according to friends who work in the industry the AGRs are a lot safer than PWRs). However
So-called 'renewable' sources simply don't have the clout
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't the chaps sausageside mannage to keep a airforce in the air on fuel brewed from turnip tops and acorns for a few years?
That is something we should have seriously looked into when the oil tap was shut in the seventies, anybody remember that farce? and what did we do? we handed the negatives right back to the blackmailer, we never learn.
That is something we should have seriously looked into when the oil tap was shut in the seventies, anybody remember that farce? and what did we do? we handed the negatives right back to the blackmailer, we never learn.
I did see something on Sky last year where a pulse laser was used to propel a small vessel into the air. Not much use for every day flight but useful for going up and into orbit.
Perhaps we will only use oils for a booster to get an aircraft up to Scramjet speed then inject some organic fuel such as turnip juice etc?
Reactors will no doubt have massive flight safety issues attached and all the pinko green types would be up in arms near local airports!!
I do think the time for research is now though, and if found we should switch as aircraft are often overlooked as massive CO2 etc polluters
Perhaps we will only use oils for a booster to get an aircraft up to Scramjet speed then inject some organic fuel such as turnip juice etc?
Reactors will no doubt have massive flight safety issues attached and all the pinko green types would be up in arms near local airports!!
I do think the time for research is now though, and if found we should switch as aircraft are often overlooked as massive CO2 etc polluters
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the CO2 emissions thing is always overstated. Burning fossil fuels simply adds to a cycle that already exists, and 95% of CO2 emissions are natural. I don't believe that a mere 5% can cause huge detriment, especially since more CO2 = more plants=more photosynthesis=CO2 levels back to 'normal' - Nature will maintain a balance no matter what we do, unless we pork it royally.
'Renewable' sources all leach energy directly from the atmosphere / sea / rivers / sun, and as such could have dire, direct and rapid consequences if used on the scale required to meet current energy needs.
'Bio' fuels are difficult to produce in large enough quantities, and burn less efficiently, making them MORE polluting. The only advantage to them is we wouldn't need to give a sh1t about the middle east anymore (not a bad thing), but any environmental argument in their favour is flawed. The 'pro' arguments are all political, IMHO.
16B
'Renewable' sources all leach energy directly from the atmosphere / sea / rivers / sun, and as such could have dire, direct and rapid consequences if used on the scale required to meet current energy needs.
'Bio' fuels are difficult to produce in large enough quantities, and burn less efficiently, making them MORE polluting. The only advantage to them is we wouldn't need to give a sh1t about the middle east anymore (not a bad thing), but any environmental argument in their favour is flawed. The 'pro' arguments are all political, IMHO.
16B
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,588
Received 445 Likes
on
236 Posts
All we need to do is harness the hot air emitted on this website. Keep us going for years.
6B,
Pumping oil out of the ground and burning it means the carbon stored in it is released. More CO2 = more plants is where the removal of said carbon back into a 'store' isn't happening; rainforest removal, deserts expanding, that sort of thing. Nature will make a balance, and revert to the kind of atmosphere the Earth had last time that amount of carbon was around.
Using renewable sources for current energy demands will affect local surroundings but won't have a global impact eg the Severn estuary tidal power scheme (one of only 7 identified locations globally which is suitable for such a method of power generation as it happens) will remove power from the water flow. This will affect the local area with altered tidal flow patterns but as the source of tidal power is the moon's orbit slowly decaying, something it will do anyway, using the power to produce electricity won't have global consequences.
Wind power, wave power, hydro-electric all have similar arguments, the only suspect production method is geothermal which has been accused of causing earthquakes in otherwise stable areas - such as Devon!
Pumping oil out of the ground and burning it means the carbon stored in it is released. More CO2 = more plants is where the removal of said carbon back into a 'store' isn't happening; rainforest removal, deserts expanding, that sort of thing. Nature will make a balance, and revert to the kind of atmosphere the Earth had last time that amount of carbon was around.
Using renewable sources for current energy demands will affect local surroundings but won't have a global impact eg the Severn estuary tidal power scheme (one of only 7 identified locations globally which is suitable for such a method of power generation as it happens) will remove power from the water flow. This will affect the local area with altered tidal flow patterns but as the source of tidal power is the moon's orbit slowly decaying, something it will do anyway, using the power to produce electricity won't have global consequences.
Wind power, wave power, hydro-electric all have similar arguments, the only suspect production method is geothermal which has been accused of causing earthquakes in otherwise stable areas - such as Devon!
Guest
Posts: n/a
propulike, correct about severn bar one point... the increase in sea friction causes the earth to slow down, in fact the moons orbit increases diameter (odd i know!). the long term effect of sea friction is that over the last 1 bn years, a day is around 10 hours longer. The same effect is visible from looking at the moon; the moon has completely stopped! hence why the moon does not rotate.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err, one begs to differ Mr mbga, yonder moon does indeed rotate, it has a captive rotation, if it did not rotate we would see all sides from the surface of the earth,to see the rotation you would have to some distance away from the earth, many a pint can be won with this simple demonstration of the moons rotation, stand in the middle of the room and have yer observer watch from one side,then nominate someone to act as the moon,have them walk round you keeping their front toward you at all time, perhaps sidle round you would be the correct term, you will alwas see their face, the outside observer will see all sides of em, ergo yon moon does indeed rotate it trotates once in every complete orbit of the Earth.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: pillar to post.
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to aircraft, the hot subject in car propulsion is fuel cells, with all the big companies pouring zillions into research.
These run on hydrogen, either directly or, as at the moment, by obtaining it from methanol. It's not just for cars either, you can make huge ones for power stations.
Sooo.. I think propellers will be making a comeback, attached to fuel cells. Commercially it makes sense, as I believe
that a prop can go very nearly as fast as a modern airliner, so flight times and the like wouldn't be drastically affected.
The storage of the hydrogen is a prob as nobody wants to do a Hindenburg, but when I was at uni there was lots of research going on into this too, with cunning ways of trapping it in metal matrices and the like.
Or the aeroplane might have been rendered obsolete by teleportation
These run on hydrogen, either directly or, as at the moment, by obtaining it from methanol. It's not just for cars either, you can make huge ones for power stations.
Sooo.. I think propellers will be making a comeback, attached to fuel cells. Commercially it makes sense, as I believe
that a prop can go very nearly as fast as a modern airliner, so flight times and the like wouldn't be drastically affected.The storage of the hydrogen is a prob as nobody wants to do a Hindenburg, but when I was at uni there was lots of research going on into this too, with cunning ways of trapping it in metal matrices and the like.
Or the aeroplane might have been rendered obsolete by teleportation
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pardon me,
but using hydrogen to power gas turbines is no problem at all.
Once upon a time there was even a Tupolev flying around with it. The hydrogen was stored on top of the fuselage. Airbus also considered building a similar demonstrator. It would be pretty stupid to use it in fuel cells instead of burning it.
The only problem with hydrogen is: How do you store it best?
If you want to create some on your own:
H2-Lab
;-)
but using hydrogen to power gas turbines is no problem at all.
Once upon a time there was even a Tupolev flying around with it. The hydrogen was stored on top of the fuselage. Airbus also considered building a similar demonstrator. It would be pretty stupid to use it in fuel cells instead of burning it.
The only problem with hydrogen is: How do you store it best?
If you want to create some on your own:
H2-Lab
;-)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about Conc Hydrogen Peroxide and Potasium Permanganate?, and its been done before, mind you, after some experiments with same in ones yoof, one would not like to sit next to a couple of tankfulls of that stuff.
The eyebrows eventually grew back.
The eyebrows eventually grew back.
PPatRoN
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: England
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a great story in Skunk Works, Ben Rich's fascinating account of his time at Lockheed's black projects division, of the occasion they had a fire in the hydrogen farm they were running. Inside a hangar on Burbank airport. In secret.
The fire went beyond Lockheed's internal firefighting capabilities, but the security status of the project meant they couldn't admit the fire service.
Until one of them hit on a cunning wheeze. All the H2 tanks were vented. The hangar was filled with a fog of hydrogen vapour. And the firefighters were admitted, wearing breathing apparatus, not knowing they were wading through hydrogen to reach the fire, and unable to see anything that might give a clue about Lockheed's project.
adr
The fire went beyond Lockheed's internal firefighting capabilities, but the security status of the project meant they couldn't admit the fire service.
Until one of them hit on a cunning wheeze. All the H2 tanks were vented. The hangar was filled with a fog of hydrogen vapour. And the firefighters were admitted, wearing breathing apparatus, not knowing they were wading through hydrogen to reach the fire, and unable to see anything that might give a clue about Lockheed's project.
adr
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read something else about the Skunk Works,the chap who filled and seviced the coffee machines did not have a security clearance, but the coffee machines were vita equipmentl, so the engineers manufaured a hard hat with a flashing blue light on top, this he had to wear when on site so everybody would stop yacking of things black when they saw a flashing blue light appear.
Secret squirrel Spam place of my acquaintance used to have flashing red lights on in the corridors when allies with 'unescorted visitor status' were present.
'Goons in the block' light we called it!
'Goons in the block' light we called it!
I must admit to not having read every reply on this thread in detail, but it would appear that nobody has mentioned the obvious solution - DILITHIUM CRYSTALS!!
P.S Sorry if the spelling is incorrect, but I am not actually a Star Trek geek!!
P.S Sorry if the spelling is incorrect, but I am not actually a Star Trek geek!!
Yes, but they're always down to Bingo 2 (Dilithium crystals) - I blame the Air Engineer's crap CRM for merely muttering "Cap'n, she canna' take it...." whilst James T gives it some at Warp Lots, instead of playing a more positive part in the team... As a result, they always have to divert to some obscure planet teeming with nasty Things - which is invariably bad news if you're a black mate in a red shirt! Always the first to go when whichever Thing living on said planet decides to get tetchy...
An Improbabilty Drive might be a Nice to Have option?
An Improbabilty Drive might be a Nice to Have option?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always thought it was daft that any engine trouble on a Starship and they eject the Warp Core, that would not have done at sea.
"Fire in the engine room Captin!!!?
"Quick!! throw the Boilers over the side chief"
"Fire in the engine room Captin!!!?
"Quick!! throw the Boilers over the side chief"