71 Wind Turbines at Windfarm in Scotland Powered by Diesel Generators!

[Glitch]

I disagree with that. From time to time, I see a research reference to the progress. We aren't there yet, but I do believe that making fuel from CO2 will happen in the fear future.

We can burn natural gas and capture all the CO2 from it. We then use excess power to return the simple molecules to more complex ones. I suspect Longview's strike price is correct, but the costs need to stay that high. Not bounce below it. We aren't there yet either, and nobody is going to invest their own capitol of a venture that may fail.

Only the government spend money on failures. Corporate America assesses the risk. Governments assess the votes they buy.

We can certainly make fuel from CO2. That has never been questioned. What I have been pointing out is that creating hydrocarbon fuels is insanely expensive, at least three orders of magnitude more expensive than longview likes to pretend. He is what I would describe as a fanatic, where the only solution to every problem is his ridiculously expensive man-made hydrocarbons. He is incapable of even comprehending the costs involved because it conflicts with his insane goal.

In order to create methane, for example, requires not only CO2 but also large quantities of hydrogen. longview likes to pretend that hydrogenation is energy free and all that hydrogen just magically appears from out of nowhere. As is typical with fanatics, they are not grounded in reality.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We can certainly make fuel from CO2. That has never been questioned. What I have been pointing out is that creating hydrocarbon fuels is insanely expensive, at least three orders of magnitude more expensive than longview likes to pretend. He is what I would describe as a fanatic, where the only solution to every problem is his ridiculously expensive man-made hydrocarbons. He is incapable of even comprehending the costs involved because it conflicts with his insane goal.

In order to create methane, for example, requires not only CO2 but also large quantities of hydrogen. longview likes to pretend that hydrogenation is energy free and all that hydrogen just magically appears from out of nowhere. As is typical with fanatics, they are not grounded in reality.

There has been extensive research on doing this and it has a good chance of becoming viable.

 

[longview]

We can certainly make fuel from CO2. That has never been questioned. What I have been pointing out is that creating hydrocarbon fuels is insanely expensive, at least three orders of magnitude more expensive than longview likes to pretend. He is what I would describe as a fanatic, where the only solution to every problem is his ridiculously expensive man-made hydrocarbons. He is incapable of even comprehending the costs involved because it conflicts with his insane goal.

In order to create methane, for example, requires not only CO2 but also large quantities of hydrogen. longview likes to pretend that hydrogenation is energy free and all that hydrogen just magically appears from out of nowhere. As is typical with fanatics, they are not grounded in reality.

I know you disagree on this but the Navy stated years ago that they thought they could make jet fuel from between $3 to $6 a gallon, when claiming a 60% storage efficiency, Sunfire is now saying that the efficiency can get up to 80%.
That combined with a realization that low duty cycle electricity has less value than on demand electricity will push the finished fuel cost down.
At the same time oil will keep increasing in price.

 

[Glitch]

There has been extensive research on doing this and it has a good chance of becoming viable.

It will never be viable. It is literally the most expensive means of creating energy that can be imagined. Which is no doubt longview's goal, to make energy completely unaffordable.

 

[Glitch]

I know you disagree on this but the Navy stated years ago that they thought they could make jet fuel from between $3 to $6 a gallon, when claiming a 60% storage efficiency, Sunfire is now saying that the efficiency can get up to 80%.
That combined with a realization that low duty cycle electricity has less value than on demand electricity will push the finished fuel cost down.
At the same time oil will keep increasing in price.

I am well aware of the US Navy's efforts in this regard. What you fail to comprehend is that the Navy is using massive amounts of nuclear power to create those hydrocarbons, which is why it only costs the Navy between $3 and $6 per gallon. Last time I checked most homes did not include a nuclear power plant like the Navy uses to create their fuel, but I'm sure you will disagree.

 

[Threegoofs]

There has been extensive research on doing this and it has a good chance of becoming viable.

Yeah.

Longview has one (1) press release.

But he posts it every week, so I’d imagine you consider that ‘extensive’.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah.

Longview has one (1) press release.

But he posts it every week, so I’d imagine you consider that ‘extensive’.

I may have been wrong on that. The extensive work is in making affordable green hydrogen. Not there yet, but making progress in the research.

 

[Glitch]

I may have been wrong on that. The extensive work is in making affordable green hydrogen. Not there yet, but making progress in the research.

You can make affordable green hydrogen. Just not enough to make a difference. In order to make enough hydrogen to be usable requires a great deal of power. The hydrogen the US Navy uses when manufacturing its hydrocarbon fuels is not "green" hydrogen, it is "pink" hydrogen because they use nuclear power in their electrolysis.

"Green" hydrogen only comes from solar, wind, or hydroelectric power sources, and none of them can generate enough hydrogen to be useful. Currently 96% of all the hydrogen produced in the US is either "black," "grey," or "brown" hydrogen. Meaning the hydrogen was produced either using coal, natural gas, or methane.

Both "blue" and "green" hydrogen account for less than 4% of the US hydrogen production. It is not a viable source of energy, and it never will be since it requires far more energy to produce than the energy you derive from the finished product. It is an effort in how much energy can be wasted to produce an even smaller amount of energy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You can make affordable green hydrogen. Just not enough to make a difference. In order to make enough hydrogen to be usable requires a great deal of power. The hydrogen the US Navy uses when manufacturing its hydrocarbon fuels is not "green" hydrogen, it is "pink" hydrogen because they use nuclear power in their electrolysis.

"Green" hydrogen only comes from solar, wind, or hydroelectric power sources, and none of them can generate enough hydrogen to be useful. Currently 96% of all the hydrogen produced in the US is either "black," "grey," or "brown" hydrogen. Meaning the hydrogen was produced either using coal, natural gas, or methane.

Both "blue" and "green" hydrogen account for less than 4% of the US hydrogen production. It is not a viable source of energy, and it never will be since it requires far more energy to produce than the energy you derive from the finished product. It is an effort in how much energy can be wasted to produce an even smaller amount of energy.

Every now and then, I see tidbits about the research. Various catalysts and sea water, using electricity to make the process more efficient.

 

[ralfy]

The whole picture matters. Right now, we have rendered coal and natural gas more expensive by having to idle plants when the wind blows and sun shines. They have artificially been made more expensive to make way for cyclical solar and chaotic wind.

Do you have a better option? I haven't seen one. No matter what we do, the future expense of power will hurt many people, bust because of a wishy-washy agenda.

They were rendered more expensive because of diminishing returns.

About your question, you're several decades too late. Why do you think the world has been resorting to energy mixes?

The IEA said the same thing in 2005: all of our problems are aboveground, and therefore solvable. After a comprehensive survey of oil resources worldwide, they argued the opposite in 2010.

In short, "the future expense of power will hurt many people." The only thing that changed is the reason.

 

[ralfy]

They are separate profit centers, antitrust and all that! The refinery could still make finished fuel products even without a supply of oil.

They depend on each other: you can't sell if you have neither.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They were rendered more expensive because of diminishing returns.

The diminishing returns is because they have to step aside to allow green energy to take the first seat.

About your question, you're several decades too late. Why do you think the world has been resorting to energy mixes?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

The IEA said the same thing in 2005: all of our problems are aboveground, and therefore solvable. After a comprehensive survey of oil resources worldwide, they argued the opposite in 2010.

In short, "the future expense of power will hurt many people." The only thing that changed is the reason.

The reason is political agendas. That has not changed.

 

[Glitch]

Every now and then, I see tidbits about the research. Various catalysts and sea water, using electricity to make the process more efficient.

What else would they use other than electricity? Therein is the problem. It requires vast amounts of electricity. We are talking nuclear power plant levels of electricity to produce sufficient quantities of hydrogen. Then even more energy is used during the hydrogenation process of combining that hydrogen with CO and/or CO2 in order to create hydrocarbon fuels.

In other words, you are expending an immense amount of energy in order to create a tiny amount of energy. This is why it is so expensive. Creating hydrocarbons wastes huge amounts of energy. It is literally the least productive means of storing energy. The US Navy does it out of necessity, not because it is cheaper or more efficient. They can't afford to have fleets of tanker vessels constantly bringing aviation fuel to aircraft carriers, like they had to during WW II, so they have to manufacture their own fuel. That doesn't make it a good idea for anyone else.

 

[PoS]

I did say something. You responded to it. Did you forget halfway through writing your last comment to me?

You said something moronic. That's not new coming from you.

 

[Noodlegawd]

You said something moronic. That's not new coming from you.

You started a moronic thread. It's nothing new that you projected that moronicity onto those who responded to it.

 

[ralfy]

About the U.S. Navy, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies have been issuing reports warning personnel about the effects of both climate change and peak oil, and to prepare accordingly. The purpose is to maintain military operations and control the populace as economies fall apart.

 

[longview]

They depend on each other: you can't sell if you have neither.

Not true in ether case, the production unit could sell oil on the open market, and the refinery could
make their own feedstock (olefins) from CO2, hydrogen and electricity.
The point where this becomes economically viable is when it costs the refinery less to make their own feedstock,
than it costs to buy and refine oil to the olefin stage.

 

[longview]

What else would they use other than electricity? Therein is the problem. It requires vast amounts of electricity. We are talking nuclear power plant levels of electricity to produce sufficient quantities of hydrogen. Then even more energy is used during the hydrogenation process of combining that hydrogen with CO and/or CO2 in order to create hydrocarbon fuels.

In other words, you are expending an immense amount of energy in order to create a tiny amount of energy. This is why it is so expensive. Creating hydrocarbons wastes huge amounts of energy. It is literally the least productive means of storing energy. The US Navy does it out of necessity, not because it is cheaper or more efficient. They can't afford to have fleets of tanker vessels constantly bringing aviation fuel to aircraft carriers, like they had to during WW II, so they have to manufacture their own fuel. That doesn't make it a good idea for anyone else.

Energy storage is what man made hydrocarbons offer that no other energy storage can, nearly unlimited capacity.
Artificial CH4 could be pushed into the natural gas grid, and be used months or years later for heating of off hours electricity.
This is also a method of storing the surplus electricity from wind and solar that would be lost because of no demand at the second of
generation. Lastly the storage capability would be available to any location regardless of topology.
The Navy says they get a storage efficiency of 60%, Sunfire is claiming up to 80% at scale.
The Sunfire plant is supposed to come online in 2024, so we will see if they can really hit 80%.
At the smaller number (60%) it would take 55 kWh of electricity to create one 33 kWh gallon of gasoline.

 

[PoS]

You started a moronic thread. It's nothing new that you projected that moronicity onto those who responded to it.

Aww, youre just mad because the article shoots down your idiotic religion. Try cope.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Aww, youre just mad because the article shoots down your idiotic religion. Try cope.

It's cute that you actually think it does anything like that.

 

[PoS]

It's cute that you actually think it does anything like that.

It sure does. Would you like a tissue?

 

[Noodlegawd]

It sure does.

Yeah. And you've made such a compelling case for that. Lemme see.....

​

LOL LMAO ROTFLMFAO!

Right on. Such a brilliant argument.

Would you like a tissue?

No thanks. Save it for the drool on your chin.

 

[ralfy]

Not true in ether case, the production unit could sell oil on the open market, and the refinery could
make their own feedstock (olefins) from CO2, hydrogen and electricity.
The point where this becomes economically viable is when it costs the refinery less to make their own feedstock,
than it costs to buy and refine oil to the olefin stage.

Selling includes refining and distribution.

 

[longview]

Selling includes refining and distribution.

Well distribution of the finished fuel products,
The raw material for those products do not need to be oil! The end of the refining process is where they reassemble olefins into whatever fuel is desired, that and all the distribution will remain the same. The source of the olefins will change from oil to atmospheric and water harvested atoms.

 

[PoS]

Yeah. And you've made such a compelling case for that. Lemme see.....

Your just mad because your moronic green energy lies just got exposed. Cry more. lol