May 19, 2007
A Purdue University engineer and National Medal of Technology winner says he's ready and able to start a revolution in clean energy.Wow. It sounds almost too good to be true. Yet another new process for generating energy from water. With all the water on this planet, our energy problems should be behind us in no time. We can finally tell Hugo Chavez and those damned Saudis to kiss our asses!!! Sayonara, suckers!!!Professor Jerry Woodall and students have invented a way to use an aluminum alloy to extract hydrogen from water — a process that he thinks could replace gasoline as well as its pollutants and emissions tied to global warming.
But Woodall says there's one big hitch: "Egos" at the U.S. Department of Energy, a key funding source for energy research, "are holding up the revolution."
...or maybe not. Find out why below the fold.
Posted by: Ragnar at
05:10 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 852 words, total size 5 kb.
The big discovery here is a means of preparing the metal in a form that oxidizes without forming a skin that would otherwise bring the process to a halt. And there is a lot of oxygen waste but since you can use the oxygen in combustion and then vent the water vapor kind of like a rocket jettisoning a stage after the fuel is used only in a slow and continuously weight loss. And the aluminum that is "consumed" is meant to be recycled so while it is not a new "power source" it is a new means of power storage that does not need high pressure hydrogen tanks. Other research projects are looking at ways to may the reduction back to metalic aluminum more efficient but I can't comment on the progress on that. Maybe this will be less useful for cars than for trucks, trains, or other transport, or even for home power supply (it produces waste heat which can be stored for underground for winter).
I have also heard that the weight of the water and metal will be not much more than an extra really fat passenger but I might have misremembered that so don't quote me.
Posted by: Saul Wall at May 19, 2007 03:00 PM (f+HVy)
Posted by: 1sttofight at May 19, 2007 03:50 PM (51r8a)
And there is a lot of oxygen waste but since you can use the oxygen in combustion...
Except that you can't. In this process, the waste oxygen isn't in a form useful for combustion.
1st to fight sez:
Aluminum in its natural state is aluminum oxide.
Well there's some unoxidized aluminum in the natural universe, but for the most part, that's right.
Where the hell is the gain?
There isn't one--no NET gain, anyway. The (chemically) free aluminum and water combination is just being used as an energy storage machanism--and not a particularly mass-efficient one. This is one of those "solution in search of a problem" things.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 19, 2007 04:14 PM (1Pw6C)
Posted by: Randman at May 19, 2007 04:18 PM (Sal3J)
The big discovery here is a means of preparing the metal in a form that oxidizes without forming a skin that would otherwise bring the process to a halt.
Except that's not a new discovery, either. Materials--including metals--capable of inhibiting aluminum surface oxidation have been known long before the present time. Now I don't know that indium and gallium (group IIIA metals) have previously been specifically demonstrated to exhibit this property, but it's prefectly reasonable to expect that they would have this effect. Mercury (a group IB metal) has been well-known for this inhibiting property for a long time. World War II legend has it that allied saboteurs concocted an oxide-inhibiting paste capable of rotting German warplanes to pieces. Some say the key ingredient in the paste was mercury.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 19, 2007 04:44 PM (1McgP)
I personally have plans for a special carburetor, that the oil companies have tried to suppress, that will allow you to get 90 MPG in your car. For plans just send me $19.95 + shipping and handling.
That's funny. I know a guy whose uncle's friend invented one of those years ago, except that his got 150 MPG--in a Lincoln Town Car, no less! The car companies (all of them) broke in one night and stole his car and all the plans. Their engineers took it apart and figured out exactly how it worked. I know this is true because my cousin's best friend's boss' grandfather was one of the engineers, and he spilled the beans on his death bed. (He also admitted that there really are aliens stored at Roswell and professional wrestling is absolutely real.)
At any rate, after figuring out how this carburetor worked, the car companies, in collusion with the oil companies, the Bilderbergs, the international Illuminati and the New World Order (aka "Novus Ordo Seclorum"--check out your money), successfully lobbied Congress to amend the laws of physics to specifically prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again. Bastards.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 19, 2007 04:59 PM (F8Gik)
Posted by: Howie at May 19, 2007 05:22 PM (YHZAl)
asw
Posted by: ASW at May 19, 2007 06:07 PM (PRd5y)
It takes HUGE amounts of electricity to extract aluminum from oxide. That is why the columbia river dams were built ... to power the aluminum industry. That's why aircraft manufacturers (such as Boeing) were in the Northwest too.
It would take huge amounts of electricity to recover the aluminum from the waste oxide. Overall it would be a major energy net loss.
The simple fact is that it consumes more energy to break the bond in the molecule than you get back when you recombine them. It would probably be less of an energy loss to simply use excess nighttime nuclear power to create hydrogen electrically and inject it into the natural gas system and use the hydrogen enriched gas in fuel cells.
Posted by: crosspatch at May 19, 2007 06:24 PM (y2kMG)
Right. I had the concept of electrolysis of water in my head when I wrote that. Sorry.
While the skin prevention might not be new, the engineery type guys seem to think that something is novel about their process. (More economically viable than other methods, faster conversion? You would have to ask them why they are all excited about it.)
If it is not very good in it's mass versus energy ratio, maybe it could have other uses. I have also heard of other metals being proposed as sources of hydrogen such as zinc. Could there be a metal out there which can be reduced more efficiently than aluminum yet still release usable amounts of hydrogen? I realize that MSNBC and other non science media folks often get overworked about these stories but there are other, more science and technology oriented publications covering this. If this was a completely asinine idea, shouldn't they have been told by some of their consultants?
Anyway, I am in favor of coal-fired cars. They leave cool black fumes and it would provide work for all the little kids that we will get to shovel the stuff into the steamer in the trunks. Or maybe we could breed monkeys to do that. Fire-monkeys. They would need to be bald to avoid accidents. Bald fire-monkeys.
Posted by: Saul Wall at May 19, 2007 08:34 PM (jjE67)
My knowledge of the physics of gases is as weak as my knowledge of metallurgy but if they need pressurized tanks to keep usable amounts of hydrogen in a car, would the amount of energy gained from enrichment of natural gas with low pressure hydrogen be all that much of a boost to the energy content? Otherwise were back to the original problem of hydrogen being hard to store in a car.
Coal cars people. That's the future.
Posted by: Saul Wall at May 19, 2007 08:52 PM (jjE67)
Posted by: Howie at May 19, 2007 10:37 PM (YHZAl)
Posted by: Vinnie at May 20, 2007 02:04 AM (frlaY)
Much like Superman is powered by our yellow sun, I'm pretty sure Transformers are powered by the incredible white-hot, alloy-melting hotness of Megan Fox. Just being in her presence is enough to keep them fully energized.
Hell, I'm pretty damn "energized" right now just watching her in a video clip...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at May 20, 2007 11:33 AM (LEBR0)
Posted by: sandpiper at May 20, 2007 03:22 PM (bzZNq)
Posted by: greyrooster at May 21, 2007 04:34 PM (dHAkw)
April 03, 2007
A gallon of gas costs an average of $2.68 nationally and is rising -- about the same price as last spring when Democrats on the campaign trail vowed to swiftly ease the pain at the pump if elected.Imagine that. Congress can't control the free market, and when they try, they are either ineffective or make matters markedly worse.The Democrats went on to win control of Congress, and the House quickly passed a bill to roll back oil subsidies, a measure leaders trumpeted as "a first step toward a future of energy independence." But months may pass before the Senate considers the bill, and analysts predict gas prices could hit $3 per gallon by summer.
[...] Mr. Townsend contends the Democrats' "CLEAN" bill, which passed the House 264-163, would have little impact because high gas prices are not the cause of record oil-company profits. He said that pump prices have nothing to do with political leaders or their bills.
The Democrat plan in action (the inconvenient truth they didn't tell you on the campaign trail.)
Posted by: Good Lt. at
01:40 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: salfter at April 03, 2007 03:48 PM (+Epz5)
They have a new angle that they are sending out in their newletter that ask for your ideas for an ad about the Iraq war. You can use it to send them a little love note like I did. Enjoy.
http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/IraqAd
Posted by: Randman at April 03, 2007 04:04 PM (Sal3J)
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at April 03, 2007 04:32 PM (oMumr)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at April 03, 2007 06:29 PM (c/4ax)
$2.93! You'd better keep that quiet or we'll be over there taking your gas and selling it over here in Blighty for THREE times the price.
Posted by: Marmite at April 03, 2007 06:45 PM (dbeM2)
Jane you poor dumb ignorant slut..................
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at April 03, 2007 09:33 PM (XvkRd)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 03, 2007 10:15 PM (iJS2A)
I drive a Civic...I don't care.
Posted by: Randman at April 04, 2007 12:52 AM (Sal3J)

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 04, 2007 12:12 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 12:24 PM (Ip3la)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 12:30 PM (Ip3la)
Posted by: tbone at April 04, 2007 03:54 PM (HGqHt)
Posted by: tbone at April 04, 2007 03:56 PM (HGqHt)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 04, 2007 10:19 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 11:45 PM (Ofz11)
Posted by: tbone at April 05, 2007 09:54 AM (HGqHt)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2007 05:26 AM (NU+M0)
March 17, 2007
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).Is this accurate? Not accurate? Do we have any climatologists in the audience? If so, please weigh in.
Posted by: Ragnar at
01:42 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
The major problem is that the thermometer was invented at about the same time the Little Ice Age was ending and there were no temperature records from the Medieval Warm Period aside from reports of vinyards in England, increased crop harvests in Northern Europe and less pack ice in the Northern Atlantic. All temperature recordings taken since the invention of the thermometer show a gradual warming ... which should be just about peaked now. I sincerely doubt we are going to get much more warming.
The notion that Gore is trying to pass off to people is to look at the last hundred years and use that to project the next 100.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 17, 2007 03:31 PM (y2kMG)
Posted by: crosspatch at March 17, 2007 03:36 PM (y2kMG)
Well if "they" are for it then I'm certainly against it.
Posted by: John Ryan at March 17, 2007 03:46 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: DAT at March 17, 2007 04:15 PM (SIJnF)
Some answers can be found at An Inconvenient Skeptic. Lot's of vids, documentaries and commentary not found in the MSM. Go figure!
Posted by: Hot Air at March 17, 2007 04:23 PM (zIOCj)
Posted by: Hot Air at March 17, 2007 04:27 PM (zIOCj)
A few of you may of already surmized that I have a PHD in Climaxtology. I can say with complete certainty that if hillary is elected, the amount of man made climaxic heat that is affecting current global warming will in deed come to a complete stop and a great cooling will occur. However, an epidemic of DSBU will ensue and we will all kill each other. Why just the other day, Rooster was attacked by a bull suffering from DSBU and he had to beat him off with a stick. It has more to do with the oceans releasing CO2 and less to do with our pal al. It's when things stop changing that we will have to worry.....
Posted by: wb at March 17, 2007 07:09 PM (s6CsG)
Posted by: crosspatch at March 17, 2007 08:21 PM (y2kMG)
Really? What an amazing coincidence! Algore has carbon credits for sale in a new company that he happens to chair!
Funny, that!
Posted by: Good Lt at March 17, 2007 08:54 PM (yMbfY)
Posted by: crosspatch at March 17, 2007 09:01 PM (y2kMG)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 17, 2007 09:26 PM (yJKSD)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2007 09:37 PM (XDiqx)
Posted by: wb at March 17, 2007 09:50 PM (s6CsG)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 17, 2007 10:43 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: wb at March 17, 2007 11:43 PM (s6CsG)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 18, 2007 12:56 AM (XDiqx)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 18, 2007 05:28 AM (2OHpj)
The theory of AGW predicts a few things that we have seen or should be seeing. Some of these predictions (as I understand it) are as follows:
1) The warming should be spread over the globe, but with slightly greater rise at low and mid latitudes than at high latitudes.
2) Highest warming should occur, not at the surface, but at 2-3 kilometers above the surface (I’ve even heard that it is greatest at 10km, but I’m not sure if that is correct)
3) Most of the temperature rise will come from positive feedback mechanisms which will kick-in by the smaller push from increased CO2.
4) The plot of the average temperature vs. CO2 concentration should track each other, except for the amplifications from the positive feedback.
What we are actually seeing is the following:
A) The Antarctic has been getting colder over the last decade.
B) Highest warming has occurred at the surface
C) CO2 concentrations increased appreciably from 1940 through 1975 yet the average temperatures fell over this period.
D) The plot of the average temperature vs. solar activity track each other with good uniformity.
E) Adjustments for urban heat island effect have not been properly considered in some cases.
F) Ice core data (Mr. Gore’s graph on his “documentaryâ€) shows CO2 increases generally lag behind increases in temperature by roughly 600 years. Some of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere we are seeing now is likely from the medieval warming period.
NASA data indicates atmospheres of both Mars and Venus have warmed slightly over the same period.Posted by: RicardoVerde at March 18, 2007 09:05 AM (QrIXC)
My conclusion (for whatever it’s worth) is that the majority of the increased temperature since the mid 1970’s is from a combination of increased solar activity and increased urban encroachment into formerly rural areas. Do I “deny†an increase from the greenhouse effect? No, I do not. My best guess from the data I’ve seen is that 0.1-0.3C of the increase is from CO2, and that is starting in the mid 1800’s. There is no evidence that any catastrophic feedback mechanism really exists. There is some evidence that slightly warmer temperatures would be beneficial to man (such as increased crop yields).
Having said all that, do I think it is a good idea to continue burning hydrocarbons (especially petroleum) for fuel? No. We really do need to look into increased efficiency nuclear plants, especially low-waste type plants. Oil should really be saved for making plastic and petrochemical products, but I don’t recommend ANY multinational groupthink panel to regulate its use.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at March 18, 2007 09:06 AM (QrIXC)
Mars Emerging from Ice Age Due to Global Warming:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+Mars&btnG=Google+Search
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+Pluto&btnG=Search
Global Warming on Jupiter:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
Wow.... didn't know my SUVs exhaust is THAT powerful....
Posted by: Jerry at March 18, 2007 04:53 PM (WqUu+)
Posted by: tbone at March 19, 2007 10:23 AM (HGqHt)
Posted by: rob at March 19, 2007 02:09 PM (QpkBe)
March 07, 2007
Posted by: Ragnar at
04:53 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
35 queries taking 0.0535 seconds, 222 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.