British Engineers Create Petrol From Air And Water

[Happily1986]

But the heat trap in our atmosphere is still radiate out to the outerspace every seconds and is == to the heat we receive from Sun.

 

If we are too efficient in trapping the heat and store it somewhere... then the place might become too cold. Might change the climate.

But anyway, we are way too primitive on capturing the energy from the sun. No immediate concern.

 

 

Ok but they are focusing on Carbon Capture and Storage, not Heat energy and storage. Key difference.

[Happily1986]

Harnessing it is just the more obvious and simpler fraction of the whole picture.

 

The real challenge now lies in the transmission of such intermittent power sources, as well as the storage of such electricity generated (so that it can be portable).

 

transmission to me is not a big problem. We already have the proper form of energy to transmit around. electricity. Unless, electricity is also proving too sub-par in terms of its energy losses (during transmission) to make the cut.

[Happily1986]

And there is a reason for that. Always remember the adage:

 

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

 

By academic world, i meant research and academia. still figuring out your connotation of "academic world"

[Lightbringer]

transmission to me is not a big problem. We already have the proper form of energy to transmit around. electricity. Unless, electricity is also proving too sub-par in terms of its energy losses (during transmission) to make the cut.

 

It's more about the transmission grid being able to handle sudden, unexpected surges of solar electricity, and base generation being able to take up the slack when solar electricity fails to materialize as expected.

[Somewhat1975]

This kind of invention is really pointless.

 

Convert energy (electrical ) to fuel and to be used in internal combustion engine ? what is the point ? Internal combustion engine has lousy energy efficiency of ~20%. Why not use the electrical motor, which has energy efficiency of 80% ?

[Happily1986]

It's more about the transmission grid being able to handle sudden, unexpected surges of solar electricity, and base generation being able to take up the slack when solar electricity fails to materialize as expected.

 

i think it would be fair to expect that if we were able to harness and bring solar energy online, we would be talking about alot of energy, perhaps in the scale of MW TW or GW. I would think it is prudent and sensible to build a secondary grid for the sole purpose of transmitting electricity (as a medium for energy transport) While i don't think current practical electricity designs have factor in redundancy to handle abrupt and staggering energy surges, this secondary grid system would be able to, since we will be designing it from the ground up. As for backup power, i am sure we can work out something to the tune of massive UPS systems. For this, current UPS system have at most scaled up to the capacity level of being able to sustain server farms, not entire power grids. Perhaps more research and development work can be devoted to this aspect.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Happily1986

[Happily1986]

This kind of invention is really pointless.

 

Convert energy (electrical ) to fuel and to be used in internal combustion engine ? what is the point ? Internal combustion engine has lousy energy efficiency of ~20%. Why not use the electrical motor, which has energy efficiency of 80% ?

 

you have missed out on the implicit benefit that is, carbon capture and storage. do you have any idea what that means? that will be a major boon to carbon mitigation efforts.

 

furthermore, you cannot deny the fact that the thermal engines (mainly Otto) are more widespread and more commonly used than the electrical motor particularly in transport application (which also consumes arguably the lion share of the the world's petroleum refining output) Please design an electrical motor meant to replace the diesel engine and bring costs down to acceptable levels and we will talk about phase out of thermal engines, en masse.

[Lightbringer]

i think it would be fair to expect that if we were able to harness and bring solar energy online, we would be talking about alot of energy, perhaps in the scale of MW TW or GW. I would think it is prudent and sensible to build a secondary grid for the sole purpose of transmitting electricity (as a medium for energy transport) While i don't think current practical electricity designs have factor in redundancy to handle abrupt and staggering energy surges, this secondary grid system would be able to, since we will be designing it from the ground up. As for backup power, i am sure we can work out something to the tune of massive UPS systems. For this, current UPS system have at most scaled up to the capacity level of being able to sustain server farms, not entire power grids. Perhaps more research and development work can be devoted to this aspect.

 

It is not that simple and you have completely missed the point. The problem with solar deployment is that it is intermittent, and unable to replace base-load electricity generation to meet base-load demand. Already in Germany, due to the huge influx of solar electricity into the European electricity grid in response to generous feed-in tariffs, electricity companies are being forced to PAY CONSUMERS TO USE EXCESS ELECTRICITY so as to keep the grid stable. Spinning up turbines from a cold start is expensive, takes time, and hence base load plants cannot shut down in response to an unexpectedly sunny day where there is an unexpected surge of solar electricity entering the grid. Similarly, most base load plants cannot start up quickly enough in time to generate electricity to meet peak demand when solar electricity is not generated when it is expected to (due to cloudy days or whatever). Steam plants starts up faster, but use expensive fuel oil and are being gradually phased out.

 

And even if building a secondary electricity transmission grid would solve the problem (and it will not), it is not such a simple undertaking as you are suggesting. Even in a country that is as small and densely populated as Singapore, an expansion and upgrade of the existing power grid - let alone building a secondary grid - costs billions of dollars. See the recent next-gen upgrades announced to SIngapore's electricity grid and you will get what I mean. And you're talking about building a electricity transmission grid for countries or regions that are far larger and wider than Singapore. Who will pay for the cost? And will this not make solar electricity far more expensive than electricity generated from conventional sources such as fuel combustion? Don't forget the only reason solar is being seen as a viable alternative is because the holy grail of grid parity, whereby solar electricity costs the same as electricity from conventional power plants, is being touted as possible. But the actual upgrades to existing transmission lines that can make this a reality (instead of building a new grid most countries are utilizing demand response and smart metering to integrate intermittent sources of energy into their electricity grid in a stable manner; this is what actually works) are expensive, and if you take this into account when calculating the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) then solar is no longer approaching grid parity and we are a long long way away from that reality.

 

 

[Lightbringer]

These links will give you a quick insight into the economics behind renewable energy. It is not just a matter of Renewables = good, so we must deploy it no matter what the cost.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-29/u...opean-grid.html

 

I like the following link a lot because it succinctly summarises how Germany delicately balances multiple interests and demands while pursuing renewables on a grand scale. This is an example of how technology, political will-power and good policy making can make miracles happen - but also illustrates the huge challenges faced when deciding how to deploy renewables.

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/featured-s...rgy-experiment/

[Lightbringer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656...-to-the-UK.html

 

This link illustrates the same problem that solar deployment faces, but for wind energy instead.

[Happily1986]

It is not that simple and you have completely missed the point. The problem with solar deployment is that it is intermittent, and unable to replace base-load electricity generation to meet base-load demand. Already in Germany, due to the huge influx of solar electricity into the European electricity grid in response to generous feed-in tariffs, electricity companies are being forced to PAY CONSUMERS TO USE EXCESS ELECTRICITY so as to keep the grid stable. Spinning up turbines from a cold start is expensive, takes time, and hence base load plants cannot shut down in response to an unexpectedly sunny day where there is an unexpected surge of solar electricity entering the grid. Similarly, most base load plants cannot start up quickly enough in time to generate electricity to meet peak demand when solar electricity is not generated when it is expected to (due to cloudy days or whatever). Steam plants starts up faster, but use expensive fuel oil and are being gradually phased out.

 

it seems to me that the problem here with this power generation model is that current steam driven turbine power generation systems (coal fired/oil fired/gas fired) are called upon to augment power demand when solar energy is unable to rise to the occasion. Given the long startup times (from cold) and like what you say, thermal efficiency is extremely poor at startup mode, this is a poor arrangement. I suppose this power generation model currently describes the current situation because there are no effective means to capture and store excess solar energy in lieu of down times.

 

And even if building a secondary electricity transmission grid would solve the problem (and it will not), it is not such a simple undertaking as you are suggesting. Even in a country that is as small and densely populated as Singapore, an expansion and upgrade of the existing power grid - let alone building a secondary grid - costs billions of dollars. See the recent next-gen upgrades announced to Singapore's electricity grid and you will get what I mean. And you're talking about building a electricity transmission grid for countries or regions that are far larger and wider than Singapore. Who will pay for the cost? And will this not make solar electricity far more expensive than electricity generated from conventional sources such as fuel combustion? Don't forget the only reason solar is being seen as a viable alternative is because the holy grail of grid parity, whereby solar electricity costs the same as electricity from conventional power plants, is being touted as possible. But the actual upgrades to existing transmission lines that can make this a reality (instead of building a new grid most countries are utilizing demand response and smart metering to integrate intermittent sources of energy into their electricity grid in a stable manner; this is what actually works) are expensive, and if you take this into account when calculating the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) then solar is no longer approaching grid parity and we are a long long way away from that reality.

 

fair point.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Happily1986

[Porker]

Do you work in the private Utilities sector?

[Lightbringer]

Do you work in the private Utilities sector?

 

I wish I did. The bonuses they pay are truly obscene.

[Darthrevan]

its only OPEC what

 

OPEC relies heavily on petroleum for revenue and once it dried up it'll be zero for them..not to mention the imperialist nations like UK, USA and France which has been leeching off black gold for a very long time..and those with pecuniary interests in O&G

[Happily1986]

OPEC relies heavily on petroleum for revenue and once it dried up it'll be zero for them..not to mention the imperialist nations like UK, USA and France which has been leeching off black gold for a very long time..and those with pecuniary interests in O&G

 

Pecuniary interests or not, power, control and resources are part of a zero-sum game. History have shown us that when a particular social order gives way to another, the privileged class from the old order does not simply give up their position(s) without a struggle.

 

I do not believe the the oil producing nations themselves are the real movers and shakers in the O&G industry. The multi-faceted conglomerates are.

[Beehive3783]

USA gonna declare war on them soon.... if they put it into production....

Declare war? Not going to happen. These scientists will get murdered instead.