-
Posts
4729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by CaptainPanic
-
You disagree with Biden, based on what? It was Gingrich - a Republican - who deregulated Wall Street! And look at the mess the financial world is in now. (Even Gingrich himself admits it was a mistake!)
-
hmm... if you use the term pyrolysis in the broadest sense of the word, then you might be right. In practice though, those working in the field will not use the term pyrolysis for every heated process with a lack of oxygen. All wet processes are not called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is a dry process, where only the biomass is heated, without many additional chemicals. They pay 400 $/gal for a gallon of fuel for planes and tanks, not for charcoal, which they can buy at the local market in Afghanistan for a few cents per kilogram. Yes, pyrolysis will increase the carbon content, reduce oxygen content... but that happens only in a significant way if you make the solid charcoal. The liquid is still full of oxygen (and even contains water!). It a pretty poor fuel. I think that currently the most popular way to turn biomass into actual fuels (like diesel) is to gasify it, then make diesel from syngas through the Fischer Tropsch reaction. (Again something the Germans used in WWII, btw). This is not economically interesting at the moment either, but might be used by the military. You can get heat and power from just burning wood too. And the fuel you get from pyrolysis is, as I said before, pretty poor. The amount of hydrogen needed in a hydrogenation scales linearly with the scale (ok, that sounds pretty obvious). But as I quoted earlier, the price of this bio-crude is driven up by the use of hydrogen, not the high investment costs or something else. The rule of thumb that bigger=better is only true with regard to the investment costs. And the investment costs are not the problem here. Also, more innovations will not reduce the amount of hydrogen needed - innovations do not change stoichiometry!
-
Try to google for "Thermodynamics". It helps if you spell it correct. The internet is full of useful information... and I think the topic is a little too broad to explain here.
-
Mr/Mme President, what are your top three goals?
CaptainPanic replied to Phi for All's topic in Politics
1. Drastically regulate the financial sector. They're gambling with our money. Give them two years to untangle the mess they have created. By the end of that period, every dollar on every account must stand for something in the physical real world. Everything dollar that does not will be declared invalid and will cease to exist. Blood will flow in the financial sector, but this way hopefully it will only be in the financial sector. Further regulation regarding mergers and splitting up companies should slow down the pace at which this is happening. Aim is to reduce the workforce in the financial sector significantly, and make it a service sector again, instead of a parasitic sector. 2. Change the regressive tax to a progressive tax. The higher your income, the larger the percentage of tax you pay. Reduce corporate tax in general, but increase tax on profits and dividend. 3. Transfer at least 50% of the military budget to large infrastructure projects (highways and railroads need a major overhaul), but also some to science, education and spaceflight. Obviously, troops will be brought home. All federal/state expenses to private security companies like former Blackwater, etc. immediately cease. All employees from those companies who lose their job as a result can join the army as a regular soldier/sailor or pilot if they qualify - with the same payment as the regular troops. No troops will be made redundant, but there will be an immediate stop in recruitment, which will last until the number of troops is reduced to deal with the lower budget. Troops whose contracts are not renewed are expected to find jobs easily in construction as a result of increased spending. People working to develop weapons can find jobs in spaceflight projects. [disclaimer] I'm a Dutchman - I might lack knowledge about certain things in the USA. This is what I'd do though. -
Living standards over here are pretty similar, I would say. I' ve been across the pond, and I didn't think it was significantly richer on either side. But my main point is that it's just wrong to call the Democrats " socialists". They are not socialist. They're pretty right wing themselves. You just don't have anything on the real left wing.
-
The Democrats like you have in the USA are NOT socialists. In most European countries, if there would be a political party like the Democrats, with the exact same program, then they would be considered capitalists and right wing. (And the Republicans would be considered extremists).
-
Recently, I guess the big news is that the mainstream sustainable types of energy (wind, solar, biomass) are becoming economically interesting.
-
plans for a lunar telescope are coming together
CaptainPanic replied to Moontanman's topic in Science News
Also makes it just that bit more difficult to get the pictures to earth. I guess the next goal is to lay down a fibre optic cable along the moon's equator? Btw, don't get me wrong. I think that these challenges are fantastic from an engineering point of view. We'll learn a lot. But I just can't help to think that there may be other things we can put down there too. How about a solar powered hydrogen/oxygen factory? There is water on the moon (although the location where it's found is permanently dark). It could make the moon easier to reach, because you have a gas station at the moon. I'd rather have a gas station on the moon than a telescope, to be honest. If it's a good gas station, it'll sell the postcards anyway. -
The Germans were desperate to get gasoline - they'd lose the war without it. The price didn't really matter. So, as you said in the 2nd part of your post, it's not economical, and it's not gonna happen. I have seen studies that support your claim that the use of so much hydrogen "has a strong negative impact on the process economics" (pdf warning). It's like the US military: they can actually afford to use airplanes to transport fuel to the front lines. The price doesn't matter (it's apparently $400/gal (2nd source)!). But for the normal consumers, the price would be totally unacceptable - obviously. You should never suggest that something is economically feasible because the military is using it. The military stands outside the economy. I'm quite sad to see that the pyrolysis (and also gasification) are often said to be feasible because the Germans used it in WWII. But that argument overlooks the #1 issue: the economy. I think the most popular methods nowadays try to leave the main chemical components (sugars, aromatics) in one piece. So, the goal is basically to fractionate and to break up the biomass into chunks of 5 or 6 carbon atoms (with all the oxygen and hydrogen still on it). And then move on from there. It's a waste of energy to break up the biomass into smaller parts - like pyrolysis or gasification. You're right that the biomass needs to be "refined" (I think "fractionated" is the popular word in biomass technology). The fractionation uses other methods though. Certainly not distillation, but instead things like solubility in water (and then a solid/liquid separation, like a filter) to make the primary separation. Playing with the pH or otherwise influencing the solubility of components is the primary trick I believe. Alternatively, you can read up on steam explosion, which is a way to open up the structure of biomass, so that enzymes can break up cellulose. The glucose then dissolves and can be removed with a liquid fraction from the otherwise solid biomass. In other words, it looks like most initiatives nowadays are looking for far more selective processes than pyrolysis.
-
Why are you still here, when you should be on the phone to get a 2nd opinion??
-
Alfred001, if you think your doctor made a mistake, go see another one. You can call them on the phone and explain why you do not want to go to your normal doctor. If you can explain all your problems in a few lines of text on a forum, then you can also summarize it to a doctor. It's your own health... don't go online on some forum asking strangers how to fix it. [edit] Arete, I think you put in enough disclaimers to get away with it. None of us is qualified to make any diagnosis, or to prescribe a cure... but if our OP wants a guess, that's what (s)he gets. A guess.
-
A lightning bolt is a rather narrow phenomenon. It's typically just a few cm in diameter. Cosmic radiation is everywhere. I find it a little weird to suggest that such radiation would cause such a local phenomenon. Also, why would lightning sometimes have a preference for cloud-cloud, and sometimes for cloud-ground discharge if caused by such radiation? If you get something like 1 high-energy particle per m3 per second, and each high energy particle can ionize even multiple molecules, you get just a handful of ions along the entire length of the lightning bolt. It sounds a little too insignificant... Although I have to admit that there are reasons why lightning does not travel in a straight line. It does search for a path of lowest resistance. Btw, I do not pretend that I understand the current popular explanation of why gamma radiation occurs in/near thunderstorms. The text used on that wiki page suggests that the scientists aren't entirely certain about it either.
-
! Moderator Note vanvan, Everyone can Google for themselves. No need to link to your own blog which contains commercial links. Next time you do that, you'll be banned as a spammer. StringJunky has been around long enough that I think he really posted with good intentions. Your post however seemed dodgy enough. If you just found that program you liked through Google, then I am sure that everyone else can find it too. We have rules on this forum. Please check them before posting again.
-
Is Baikonur so secretive? Quite recently a Dutch guy got launched and it got a lot of media coverage over here in the Netherlands. I heard that the journalists were quite surprised how close they could get to the actual launch site in Baikonur (Russia). They said they could get 3x as close as in the USA, or something. Not sure whether they needed special permits, or if that was just a public area. Also, treat this as hearsay... It's a little while ago, and I cannot seem to find a link to back this up.
-
In another thread (this one), Essay mentioned pyrolysis. I am not a big fan of pyrolysis, so I wanted to discuss it. But it seems to be off-topic, so I continue the discussion here, in a separate thread. I disagree. The bio-crude contains way too much oxygen (about 50% on a weight basis) to be compatible with standard petrochemistry. Refining the bio-crude is a separation nightmare, because the crude is still reactive and contains a lot of different components. Standard distillation is a bad idea, because the crude will react upon heating. Removing the oxygen is energetically a bad idea, and economically impossible. The large majority of bio-waste is lignocellulosic, and can be fractionated into its main biological components which can then be selectively reacted to desirable products (like cellulose --> glucose --> ethanol, as in the 2nd generation ethanol factories). Totally agree with this. We only disagree on which technology is the best. I think that the pyrolysis just turns the biomass into a bio-mess (that must be the worst joke of the day). While it's technologically easy to use, there are a few reasons why I wouldn't advise local small-scale use of this technology. 1. CO (carbon monoxide) is formed. Fumes coming off the process are highly toxic. 2. Explosion hazards, fire hazards. If people want localized energy, sun and wind are more practical and affordable. Or, alternatively, they can just burn the biomass.
-
The idea already exists. I think it started at MIT, where they made an artificial leaf, that can split water into oxygen and hydrogen using only sunlight, and some fancy coating. There seem to be some commercial initiatives too, but I guess that the hydrogen/oxygen made is still more expensive than the standard (fossil) way of making it. ! Moderator Note Let's keep this thread on topic. Post #5 gives a good explanation of the topic. I have some stuff to say about the pyrolysis too, but it is off-topic, so I created a new thread (here) for that.
-
plans for a lunar telescope are coming together
CaptainPanic replied to Moontanman's topic in Science News
What is the benefit of having a telescope on the moon, rather than just in orbit? I checked the article (glanced over it), but it seems to me that the coolness of it is the main argument. It's a challenge with a prize (money). -
Experimental light exceeds 100% efficiency
CaptainPanic replied to Anders Hoveland's topic in Science News
So it is a heat pump that makes light instead of heat. And when the light is absorbed, it's heat again. So, it's a heat pump, but a little more complicated and more awesome. There are systems, already on the market for many years, that use a heat pump to heat houses. For every Joule of electricity used in the pump (compressor), about 3-5 Joules of heat are released into your house. -
Here's a list of all spaceports that will launch satellites (wikipedia). Seems that the nearest location (geographically) for you is the Marshall Islands, where SpaceX launch their Falcon 1, which can carry 670 kg to LEO... but I have no idea if that is the nearest in terms of travel costs. Sea Launch also launch from the pacific, but I guess they will go a little bit away from the coast for safety reasons. The list I linked to also mentions how many rockets were launched. Some spaceports are busy places, some are hardly ever used.
-
Was Hitler intrinsically evil or psychotic?
CaptainPanic replied to Alan McDougall's topic in Psychiatry and Psychology
Were the Romans all evil for keeping slaves or having gladiator fights? Or for butchering a million Gauls when they invaded modern-day France? I don't think Hitler was mad at all. However, his ideology was so shockingly different from ours that it was worth fighting the biggest war ever. -
I guess they mean that from the earliest primates, multiple lines have branched off, and only one of those branches became us (humans). There may have been other humanoid species in the past that didn't make it. They've died out. Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.
-
Use Google No, seriously... use Google. Type [remove funmoods toolbar], and if the first couple of hits are not working, add your operating system (win xp? windows 7?) and also which browser you're using. Also, never install any toolbars. They're all rubbish.
-
Experimental light exceeds 100% efficiency
CaptainPanic replied to Anders Hoveland's topic in Science News
So, they've made a heat pump from a LED? Heat pumps like in your fridge always >100% efficiency if you define efficiency in a silly way. Typically, they talk about the coefficient of performance, not efficiency. -
rigney, don't dodge the question. It is perfectly clear that those are not your words, but the words from some report, which you obviously didn't write. The main issue is: where are the facts?
-
Fantastic question! I was about to ask exactly the same about the opening post!