SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum



Idle Banter For non SV and non bike related chat (and the odd bit of humour - but if any post isn't suitable it'll get deleted real quick).
There's also a "U" rating so please respect this. Newbies can also say "hello" here too.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-11-21, 08:37 AM   #1
Seeker
Member
Mega Poster
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: NE Lincs
Posts: 1,065
Default Cop26

It looks like there will not be any serious commitments made at COP26. It is kind of funny in some ways. Everyone (mostly) accepts that the outcome of not doing enough will be catastrophic and yet here we are haggling over money.
Perhaps if the world stopped spending $1.92 trillion on the military (2019 figures), it would have enough money to save our home.

On a related note, the fossil fuel industry was subsidised to the tune of $5.9 trillion in 2020 with not one single country pricing its fuels to reflect their full supply and environmental costs.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nute-imf-finds

“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money."

(possibly a quote from Alanis Obomsawin, an Abenaki (American) Indian)
__________________
2016 SV650AL7
2023 GSX-8S
Seeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-21, 11:36 AM   #2
Bibio
Member
Mega Poster
 
Bibio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: here as devil's advocate
Posts: 11,539
Default Re: Cop26

"Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third" ermm no it wont coz everyone will still pay the price no matter what. these people really are furkin muppets.

at the moment we are stuck in a rut and have no option but to use fossil fuels until there is a clean, sustainable, on demand alternative. we cant go back to using horse and cart as the shizz piles in cities would be as big as Ben Nevis.

at the moment we need a passive catalyst (the big boys know what this but wont tell) that can separate the H and O in water then a power cell to combine them again. its not a perfect solution as its turning one resource to another but it would be better than relying on total "e" power. e power is not as clean as it makes out to be. yes the cars dont emit pollution but everything else connected to them does. you have to remember that most vehicles are a minimum 60% plastic so are made from crude oil. and lets not even get started on how dirty battery's are to the environment. then you have the way the electricity is made. NOTHING IS CARBON NEUTRAL and saying so is lies.

the whole reason that there is a big fuss about the public using fossil fuel is the extension of it for industry. think of what would happen if fossil fuel run out tomorrow. no more planes, ships, farming etc.etc. people would be thrown back to before the invention of steam. that means only local produce in the shops and billions of deaths worldwide. even the enviro-mental-ists would be crying out for fossil fuel to return coz they can get their muesli.

its not about global warming its about milking the gullible public for everything they have. and scaremongering them into higher prices.
Bibio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-21, 12:26 PM   #3
embee
Member
Mega Poster
 
embee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 2,801
Default Re: Cop26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibio View Post
..... we need a passive catalyst (the big boys know what this but wont tell) that can separate the H and O in water then a power cell to combine them again. ....
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "passive catalyst", (I'm guessing what it infers), but there is a fundamental thermodynamic issue that you cannot separate a compound/molecule and raise the potential energy of the constituents without applying MORE energy than that increase. If you could it would be a perpetual motion machine. There is always a loss (increase in entropy). When you recombine them you will release less energy than it took to get them separated. You cannot separate them with a catalyst which has no energy input.
Hydrogen from electrolysis is a viable way to store energy, but there is always a loss involved in any such process. Most commercial hydrogen comes from oil/gas at the moment, blue not green. Hydrogen from electrolysis seems to be around 80% efficient from a quick search, so you need to put in 25% more energy than you can recover from reacting the hydrogen, and that's not allowing for losses in the fuel cell etc. If you have loads of spare electricity on tap then it makes a lot of sense. It certainly makes no sense to use a gas fired power station to produce electricity to do the electrolysis.
__________________
"Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"

Last edited by embee; 13-11-21 at 12:30 PM.
embee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-21, 05:06 PM   #4
Bibio
Member
Mega Poster
 
Bibio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: here as devil's advocate
Posts: 11,539
Default Re: Cop26

passive catalyst is a material that reacts to other materials without the need of external ignition/energy. think sodium in water. you would use lets say it was sodium as the fuel but only when it comes in contact with the water the reaction separates the O and H. you then recombine the two together at which point you get heat and power from the power cell. pure H2O is the by product so used again and again in the cell.

i'm using sodium as an example as we do not know (but i suspect the powers that be do) what element or combination of elements would work as the fuel (catalyst). its theoretical. the big problem is we would mine for the elements (think coal) which creates a whole new problem.

you would fill the vehicle with the catalyst like you would petrol...

you dont have to burn stuff to create energy.

Last edited by Bibio; 13-11-21 at 05:07 PM.
Bibio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-21, 09:27 PM   #5
johnnyrod
Member
Mega Poster
 
johnnyrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Doncaster, oop norf
Posts: 2,122
Default Re: Cop26

As Embee says, there is no free lunch. It requires energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen and according to Hess's law, you will get the same energy back, but on a purist level. In the real world 100% efficiency is impossible (yes this is a scientific fact) so yu have losses along the way e.g. resistance heating.

A catalyst makes a reaction go faster but is unable to affect the overall energy change involved, these are two different parameters in the same way that the spark from a spark plug is not related to the energy released from the petrol burning. Catalysts are not consumed in the same way that you do need to fill your tank with petrol but the spark plugs fire many times.

On the one hand big money causes problems, on the other I'm not one for conspiracy theories. If someone really had the secret to "clean" energy they would be limitlessly rich.
johnnyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-21, 11:22 PM   #6
embee
Member
Mega Poster
 
embee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 2,801
Default Re: Cop26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibio View Post
......
you would fill the vehicle with the catalyst like you would petrol...

you dont have to burn stuff to create energy.
As johnnyrod says, a catalyst influences the rate at which a reaction takes place, it is not changed as a result of the reaction. Precious metals in a vehicle catalytic converter are not changed or depleted, they attract the reactants and provide a site and conditions for the reaction to take place and then release the products. A 3-way catalyst for example can encourage the transfer of oxygen in NOx molecules to move over to HC or CO molecules to gve H2O and CO2 (leaving N2 free), the reason it works is that energy is released, the resultant compounds have a lower energy state than the reactants.
You still need to provide the reactants. If you're putting a substance into a reaction and it gets changed and releases energy then it's a fuel not a catalyst.

You cannot create energy (except in a nuclear sense of converting mass into energy), chemical reactions "release" potential energy, burning is just one form of reaction (oxidation), but it's the most common way to release energy from a "fuel". If you want to force the reaction backwards, e.g. having burned hydrogen and formed water and releasing energy as heat, to then split the water back into free hydrogen and oxygen you must put at least the same amount of energy back in to re-establish the potential energy of the hydrogen.

You cannot do it simply with the presence of a catalyst, it won't happen, it's thermodynamics.
__________________
"Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
embee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-21, 12:39 PM   #7
Bibio
Member
Mega Poster
 
Bibio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: here as devil's advocate
Posts: 11,539
Default Re: Cop26

there is no free lunch. yes i know as it would use "fuel" to separate the H and O. its the reaction of the "fuel" to the H2O that causes the molecules to to separate. the separated molecules are then fed into a fuel cell where they are combined its the reaction of the combining of H and O back to H2O that creates heat and electricity.

its the "fuel" thats the problem as we do not know what it is. the "fuel" is passive as it requires no combustion only a chemical reaction. as said sort of like a nuclear reaction.

the problem with hydrogen fuel cells is the by product waste is H2O and given the amount of vehicles on the road we have rivers not roads it also takes masses of energy to produce hydrogen in factories.

throw the text books away and think out the box. if it were not for people pushing the boundary's of science we would still be in the dark ages. classic example is the link between helicobacter problems in your stomach and ulcers. the person was ridiculed by his peers until it was proven fact, i think he won a Nobel prize...

if producing a steady supply of clean power were really the problem then why do we not have tidal powered generators instead of stupid windmill type that rely on wind. tides are guaranteed....
Bibio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-21, 01:35 PM   #8
Seeker
Member
Mega Poster
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: NE Lincs
Posts: 1,065
Default Re: Cop26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibio View Post
if producing a steady supply of clean power were really the problem then why do we not have tidal powered generators instead of stupid windmill type that rely on wind. tides are guaranteed....
You mean like this one:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-57991351

Your question should have been why aren't they more common and that's because it's harder/much more expensive to make a durable product that is immersed in sea water. There is also the question of how much sea life will be affected. Wind turbines are cheaper.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science...taken-off-yet/

Since wind turbines are at the mercy of the wind and sometimes have to be shutdown because they're not needed (and/or unbalance the grid) why not use their spare capacity at those times to generate hydrogen through electrolysis?
__________________
2016 SV650AL7
2023 GSX-8S
Seeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-21, 12:56 PM   #9
Bibio
Member
Mega Poster
 
Bibio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: here as devil's advocate
Posts: 11,539
Default Re: Cop26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
yes buy why do they need to be so effin complicated. why not a fixed structure with topside maintenance platform. sort of a mix between Thames Barrier and dyson "fanless" air fan but it works the other way.

and we could also drill down to magma for thermal energy like Iceland does. lets face it the worst that can happen is we get a volcano that we can then charge tourists to visit.
Bibio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-21, 07:43 PM   #10
johnnyrod
Member
Mega Poster
 
johnnyrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Doncaster, oop norf
Posts: 2,122
Default Re: Cop26

The problem with fuel cells is that the source of hydrogen isn't very green, and they are about 50% efficient in converting chemical to electrical energy. Way better than ICE which is more like 20%, but not as good as a battery. That and carrying around pressurised hydrogen is not for the fainthearted.
johnnyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BBC Sport: COP26: How motorsport can play a role in cleaner mobility NewsBot News 0 04-11-21 07:10 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.