Indian scientist invents bloom box for electricity production
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Coburn on 26 Feb 2010 10:49 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:19:13 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: > On 2/26/2010 1:32 AM, Michael Coburn wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:36:18 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> On 2/24/2010 1:01 AM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:41:19 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2/23/2010 4:41 PM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:38:51 -0800, Benj wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 23, 4:09 am, "Cwatters" >>>>>>> <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From what I can tell it's "just" a fuel cell. No doubt >>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> Google are interested so they can run it off biofuel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right. Electricity from food. Burning food for energy has already >>>>>>> begun to work out real well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Typical oil company shill response. There are a lot more biofuel >>>>>> efforts that use non food resources these days. Corn was a >>>>>> disaster and it is the gift that keeps on giving for the oil >>>>>> company shills. >>>>> >>>>> So how much of this biofuel comes from non-cropland resources? >>>>> That's the issue. >>>> >>>> In the case of switchgrass and woodchips and algae there is no use of >>>> "cropland". >>> >>> So where do the switchgrass and wood chips and algae come from? >>>> >>>> >> From land that cannot grow food crops economically. > > And yet it can grow switchgrass. Hint--if it's a grass it grows in the > same kind of conditions as other grasses, and "other grasses" includes > wheat and corn. Nope. > As for wood chips, what kind of land can grow trees but not trees that > are currently useful for purposes other than being burned? Better used for ethanol. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: J. Clarke on 26 Feb 2010 12:22 On 2/26/2010 10:49 AM, Michael Coburn wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:19:13 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: > >> On 2/26/2010 1:32 AM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:36:18 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >>> >>>> On 2/24/2010 1:01 AM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:41:19 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2/23/2010 4:41 PM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:38:51 -0800, Benj wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 4:09 am, "Cwatters" >>>>>>>> <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From what I can tell it's "just" a fuel cell. No doubt >>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> Google are interested so they can run it off biofuel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right. Electricity from food. Burning food for energy has already >>>>>>>> begun to work out real well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Typical oil company shill response. There are a lot more biofuel >>>>>>> efforts that use non food resources these days. Corn was a >>>>>>> disaster and it is the gift that keeps on giving for the oil >>>>>>> company shills. >>>>>> >>>>>> So how much of this biofuel comes from non-cropland resources? >>>>>> That's the issue. >>>>> >>>>> In the case of switchgrass and woodchips and algae there is no use of >>>>> "cropland". >>>> >>>> So where do the switchgrass and wood chips and algae come from? >>>>> >>>>> >>> From land that cannot grow food crops economically. >> >> And yet it can grow switchgrass. Hint--if it's a grass it grows in the >> same kind of conditions as other grasses, and "other grasses" includes >> wheat and corn. > > Nope. I see. So show us switchgrass growing in a place where wheat or corn won't grow. >> As for wood chips, what kind of land can grow trees but not trees that >> are currently useful for purposes other than being burned? > > Better used for ethanol. It helps if you put a subject in your sentences. What is "better used for ethanol" and in what way is that use "better"? And what are you going to do with the ethanol if not burn it? Are you planning on drinking it? >
From: habshi on 26 Feb 2010 17:08 excerpt At the ceramic core is the electrode where the chemical reaction occurs at high temperature, drawing oxygen ions through the plate and generating a voltage. The Bloom Box consumes hydrocarbons as it operates and is claimed to be twice as efficient in energy use while emitting only 60% of the CO2 emissions compared with just simply burning the hydrocarbons. The process is reversible, so if it were used with other renewable power such as a wind turbine or solar panel, the fuel cell can make and store hydrogen and oxygen that can be later used when solar or wind power is unavailable. The waste output is like other fuel cells, water (which is re-used), and CO2.
From: J. Clarke on 26 Feb 2010 18:35 On 2/26/2010 5:08 PM, habshi(a)anony.net wrote: > excerpt > > At the ceramic core is the electrode where the chemical reaction > occurs at high temperature, drawing oxygen ions through the plate and > generating a voltage. The Bloom Box consumes hydrocarbons as it > operates and is claimed to be twice as efficient in energy use while > emitting only 60% of the CO2 emissions compared with just simply > burning the hydrocarbons. So where does the rest of the carbon go? > The process is reversible, so if it were used with other renewable > power such as a wind turbine or solar panel, the fuel cell can make > and store hydrogen and oxygen that can be later used when solar or > wind power is unavailable. The waste output is like other fuel cells, > water (which is re-used), and CO2. If it was reversible then it would produce the same fuel that it consumed when you applied power to it. Looks like yet another fuel cell only with good marketing.
From: jimp on 26 Feb 2010 19:48
In sci.physics habshi(a)anony.net wrote: > excerpt > > At the ceramic core is the electrode where the chemical reaction > occurs at high temperature, drawing oxygen ions through the plate and > generating a voltage. The Bloom Box consumes hydrocarbons as it > operates and is claimed to be twice as efficient in energy use while > emitting only 60% of the CO2 emissions compared with just simply > burning the hydrocarbons. So where does the rest of the carbon go, carbon monoxide, diamonds, BBQ briquetes? Twice as efficient as what? Combined-cycle generators are about 50% efficient. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |