Synthetic fuel from green energy - News

[harryagain]

The only benefit is that it could "use up" surplus renewable energy.

[harryagain]

Pointless.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not even then sadly.

The track record of Nature in publishing bollocks is all to evident, and the amount of junk that's been patented over the years..

[Chris Hogg]

I have no doubt that TNP has vision, faith and hope for the future; it's just not the same as yours. I doubt if his includes thousands of windmills, hundreds of acres of solar panels, regular power cuts and a slow decline in our standard of living brought about by expensive and ultimately ineffective technologies. Yours may not either, but that's the way a lot of superficial and ignorant thinking is heading.

Perhaps you would take more notice of the opinions of James Lovelock, the man behind the 'Gaia Hypothesis' and a prominent environmentalist over the last fifty years or so. I've just been reading his most recent book 'A Rough Ride to the Future' (Penguin). In it he roundly condemns the huge sums of money squandered on renewable energy sources, which he regards as hopelessly impractical, and he considers the environmental movement to be a powerful negative feedback on enlightened technological progress. He is also damning of the arguments against nuclear power and the way it has been presented by environmentalists and the ignorant media as something to be feared.

It would seem to me that Lovelock and TNP have a lot in common, and Lovelock has a very positive and optimistic view of the future. Perhaps you should read him.

[Alan Braggins]

Which is exactly why Audi say they are working on it:

'Currently, Germany's vast expansion of photovoltaic power has largely been able to eliminate the peak of demand for traditional generation that occurs at mid-day. However, as the country continues to expand the installation of renewable power, it's quite possible that there will be periods of over-production. As such, Audi is promoting the technology as a means to "stabilize the grid when production of green power peaks."'

The US Navy are also working on it. Having a nuclear powered aircraft carrier being able to create fuel for aircraft and escort ships is potentially useful even if it costs more than having fossil fuel delivered in a tanker. Long term, they are aiming for "in the range of $3 to $6 per gallon to produce":

[The Natural Philosopher]

Except it doesn't. Occur at mid day. It occurs just after sunset actually, in winter, when solar output is zero.

Another green lie utterly refuted by actual FACTS.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able to do that.

[tabbypurr]

It took how many posts before someone said this?

NT

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not many

[tabbypurr]

and in reality is directly in opposition to the green agenda of reducing energy consumption

NT

[tabbypurr]

The lack of education in basic engineering in schools has led to the point where the majority of the public is naive enough to believe in simple green energy scams, and vote for whatever politician spends the most money on th ese basic scams. The sad result is people keep dying unnecessarily due to w aste of funds that could solve the lack of NHS funding, and be used to addr ess the level of incompetence in said NHS.

NT

[Tim Streater]

Had the Green leaflet delivered today. Reading their manifesto it's clear that they are just left-wing extremists who adopt the mantle "green" (rather than, say, Socialist Workers Party) to make themselves look good to naive fools.

[Tim Streater]

Ah, OK :-). I guess I meant as a normal constituent of ordinary hydrocarbons.

[harryagain]

Brain dead as usual. All diesel engines produce NOx and carbon particles. Why do you suppose they are trying to fit exhaust gas modifying devices? Mostly a failure to date

Here you are shit-fer-brains.

[harryagain]

They would gather CO2 from fossil/bio fuel burning plants or breweries etc. Gathering from the air would be difficult. And pointless.

[harryagain]

He's just a poor old man, living in the past and can't see past the end of his nose. I bet his grandad thought you'd die if you travelled faster than 30mph.

Fossil fuel is killing us all. And nuclear will given chance.

[harryagain]

Yes well lots of things were impossible to the brain dead in the past. Steam locomotives, motorcars, heavier than air flight, supersonic flight, space flight, radio, photography. television, computers, jet engine, microprocessors etc etc.

Plenty of brain dead here, making pronoucements from a positio of total ignorance (which they think tobe "common sense"). Some I think have no education at all.

[harryagain]

Slavery died out because of cheap fossil fuel coupled with technology. A situation rapidly changing.

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days. Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors. So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything. Or even have an idea of what's possible.

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out. No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

[Huge]

Melons.

[harryagain]

Europe colonised the world long before the steam engine.

In many cases driven by religion and greed.

It was money that made it all possible. The concentration of wealth. Accumulating yet more wealth. An upward spiral. (Which is why socialism always fails.)

Cheaper is rarely more effective. Eg Smart bombs v. dumb bombs. Rifles v. muskets