Alternative fuel

The highest efficiency steam engines still only give an efficiency of only 60%. The only way to increase the efficiency further is to use the waste heat to heat water for businesses and houses.

24 hrs a day lots of labor and man hrs.

Hero999 said:

The highest efficiency steam engines still only give an efficiency of only 60%. The only way to increase the efficiency further is to use the waste heat to heat water for businesses and houses.

Click to expand...

Ok, But in this instance no one will really want to live near this thing. Trust me.

So, if that is the truth then your going to have to recover it in the same process cleaning up the rest of the heat and storing it for further use later.

As within a twenty four hour period. Meanwhile at night you could utilize the time for gathering and processing all the waste.

Good point why waste it.

kv

Hero999 said:

However, I'm becoming increasingly skeptical as it hasn't really gone anywhere in the last two years. If it was as good as they make out, then there would have been many facilities set up by now to process household and industrial waste - there's got to be a catch somewhere.

Click to expand...

Makes you think they are just claiming government money and giving encouraging reports - it doesn't sound like it's anywhere near a practical scheme, and may never be?.

Gases have to be burned not converted.

Hero999 said:

The highest efficiency steam engines still only give an efficiency of only 60%. The only way to increase the efficiency further is to use the waste heat to heat water for businesses and houses.

Click to expand...

After reading further about this process there is a point at which gases are building up and will not convert to liquid. So burning it is suggested to drive Generators. (I really didn't plan on using conventional generators.)

I am thinking now about an article in Popular Mechanics back in the early 80's which talked a about a giant balance ring so well balance plus using strong magnetic bearings.

If you spin this with your hand it would spin for several day's. If you spin it at the suggested speed it would spin for weeks off of one input. The problem then and would be today is balancing something that weighs several tons cost effectively.

My thoughts were to employ the sterling because of the hot and cold thing if this is to work it will be in a desert and the temp variance would be useful. Then include a giro type device with hydraulics outputing the result into this ring which would act as the stator.

I have no idea what the result could be as to compare this to a conventional generator.

The system I'm suggesting would utilize several processes and would be more akin to making concrete. It would have step processes.

The thing is, it's a closed system, no one really knows what's going on there.
I do know that Warren Buffet's son has looked at investing in the company.
I'm not really looking at thermal depolymerization, this term seems internal to changing world technologies. I look at the technologies behind that, which by the way comes from the late 1800's.
I think hero999 has the right idea, problem is man. We stumble upon something, then want to use it to rip others off with it. Typical. Although, these guys claimed to produce ethanol at around $1/litre.
I think they are planning another four plants somewhere.

But I tell you, I'm itching to play with this on a small scale myself, but as I've said, scared of such high pressure with that much heat in it. Sounds like instant death to me.
Hero999, the thing also, the less we burn stuff, the better for the environment, and we really need to invest in that.

Now hydrous pyrolysis lets you make methanol, or ethanol if you choose.
Many experts peg methanol as the fuel of the future, but not to burn it.
Fuel cells. I think Toshiba is rolling out with fuel cells based on methanol now.

We should come out with a nuclear fuel cell for Iran. Iran only. An old design, a really old design...

hero999
Sorry the 70% I've been talking about is: if you take a plastic bottle, converted, 70% of that is back as an oil, it's not a pressure chamber to drive something like a steam engine.
Part of the process to get the plastic bottle back into oil involves high heat and hellova high pressure. The pressure is then taken away.
You can imagine what that does, the structure breaks down.

KV, something else I've been thinking of, if the system is under that sort of pressure, surely it will force the steam back into liquid form, or at least part of it.

Nuclear fuel cell for Iran = Lots of Dirty Bombs.

Really you even suggesting making a nuclear fuel cell for the masses is like giving guns to people with issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

KL, I think EE was making a joke.
Sorry you did not pick up on it.

Krumlink said:

Nuclear fuel cell for Iran = Lots of Dirty Bombs.

Really you even suggesting making a nuclear fuel cell for the masses is like giving guns to people with issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

Click to expand...

Don’t get me started on gun control stupidity.… Oh Hell, you already did.

Hey, let’s make something that’s already illegal, just that much more illegal! Like it’s going to deter someone who’s already throwing away his life! Get real!

Yes.

arrie said:

KV, something else I've been thinking of, if the system is under that sort of pressure, surely it will force the steam back into liquid form, or at least part of it.

Click to expand...

Ok, this is after the fact yes it will during the process it has to return to it's natural state. I just couldn't fathom how much because the process itself is so secret. However, a loss to latent heat low enough would result in a loss overall if it is allowed to cool below 300 degrees f.

I guess this would be acceptable if you were to recirculate it drive of some for Generators regardless of losses then process it to heat needed for heating and such which now has driven it down to become sub-cooled. Then you would pick it up and recharge the liquid State.



kv I guess. But under such pressure the equivalent is Pressure rise temp gain.

It does seem a very complex process, and rather complex to control also.

Yet, think of the possibilities of it.
It does switch the brain into overdrive.

Almost anything to fuel. That just sounds so good.

Internal combustion engines are about 15% efficient. If you could raise that to 45 or 60 we would have more then enough fuel to go around and it would be better for the environment too.

What is more important, alternate fuels, or more efficient engines.

Co2 Emissions Question ?

3v0 said:

Internal combustion engines are about 15% efficient. If you could raise that to 45 or 60 we would have more then enough fuel to go around and it would be better for the environment too.

What is more important, alternate fuels, or more efficient engines.

Click to expand...

(3vo sorry, This just reminded me of something.)


So arrie, with Canada Strip Mining process there is a heating component to it which will cause the sand/oil to give off CO2 into the air during the seperation and are releasing more than their projected decrease by ministry in order to be a leader in reducing greenhouse emissions.

Big oil once again to bate and switch.

So with this process is there any emissions of concern with this conversion ?

As to address environmental issues in 3vo question.

kv

3v0 said:

Internal combustion engines are about 15% efficient. If you could raise that to 45 or 60 we would have more then enough fuel to go around and it would be better for the environment too.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you would care to suggest how that might be done? - modern engines are far more fuel efficient than older ones, but it's through evolution and modern technology - you're wanting a much more massive leap forward than all previous ones.

I would suggest it needs something entirely new, and (before you ask) I've no idea what that might be.

Nigel Goodwin said:

Perhaps you would care to suggest how that might be done? - modern engines are far more fuel efficient than older ones, but it's through evolution and modern technology - you're wanting a much more massive leap forward than all previous ones.

I would suggest it needs something entirely new, and (before you ask) I've no idea what that might be.

Click to expand...

I do not have any magic bullets but. I do not think we should sit on our butts waiting for one to show up. I agree we need the new things but much can be done with what we already have.

In the short term higher compression through turbo charging, water injection, direct fuel/Pietro injection etc will get a few more percent out, maybe move from 15 to 20 percent. As mentioned elswhere high compression cooled with water allows for a leaner burn.

The crower cycle engine (if it could be made to work) is said to be 40% better then a standard engine. Most of what I suggested above could be added to a crower cycle engine.

A lighter car does not increase the efficiency of the engine but it does for the car as a unit. This should be easier to do then increasing engine efficiency.

In 1992 with the General Motors built the Ultralite.
It was rated at 88 mpg–U.S. (2.67 L/100 km / 105.7 mpg–imp) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Since then we have made some advances in carbon fiber production that should make it more practical.

There is a lot that can be done.

KV, the process breaks the feedstock material into short chain hydro carbons, so guess that's where the majority C's end up, but you could have a point and some CO2's might get away.
In that case, we must plant small forests around the facilities. I don't know. Yet.
I am thinking about all the water, that needs removing, otherwise you'll end up with rather crappy oil to work from, and the process relies heavily on super heated water.
Oh so many questions. So little brain.
3v0, to my knowledge IC engines are more efficient than 15%, and diesel more so than gasoline/petrol. the thing is, it's not even 40% for diesel, and not even 30% for petrol. In the best of engines, and claimed.
So my thinking is everyone says fossil fuels are still the most economical to "harvest", refine and use for vehicles, but if you could get accurate figures from oil companies and run it through those efficiency percentages, you'll find that 60 to 70% of what you pay for can not be harnessed, ouch that hurts.
In other words, you actually pay much more for your fuel that you use in IC engines, mmmmmmm....
The thing is, we've been at it for years now to improve the efficiency of the IC engine, and where are we, roughly 27-32% for petrol and I think 37% for diesel. And those are the best of them.
And if major manufacturers claim some new tech that makes it better, they can barely claim a fraction of a percentage, wow.
So the point is, we need some new technology, but where do you start, the engine, the fuel, the means? The answer is everywhere.
I'm not familiar with the crower cycle engine, but know that the Stirling claims rather high efficiency ratings, wankel is even lower than petrol engines.
Steam engines are quite high, but like stirling quite bulky.
The one with the highest efficiency would most likely be the jet engine, but I doubt the people behind you are going to be happy.
So I don't know, just like Nigel said, but what do you think?
Tell me more about Crower cycle, maybe this forum can bring it to life. And maybe we can do the same for Stirling engines.

arrie,
The source said 15% for IC and about 50% for fuel cells. I think it was the Beyond Tomorrow program out of Austrialia.

The Crower Cycle engine adds two cycles to the end of the normal 4 cycle engine. When the piston reaches the top of the exhaust stroke the valves are closed and water is injected into the cyclinder. The hot cylinder and piston turn the water to steam resulting in another power stroke. This is followed by an exhaust stroke and the next 4 strokes are as normal.

No radiator is required. Water gets into the oid and needs to be removed with an extractor. The last time I checked there was only one single cylinder prototype engine.

Turbine engines have a great power to weight ration but are fuel hogs. I think the same is true for jets. Not sure.

Did you checkout the GM Ultralite. If you dig you can find a few good links on it.

CNG Vehicles once again.

arrie said:

KV, the process breaks the feedstock material into short chain hydro carbons, so guess that's where the majority C's end up, but you could have a point and some CO2's might get away.


In that case, we must plant small forests around the facilities. I don't know. Yet.

Click to expand...

Still can't be worse than our current refining system or worse yet to do it the way Canada Strip Mining system is done. There water is a huge liquid slug that nobody wants.

I'm told CNG here in the United States may become useful. I guess Texas has a hole bunch left over after the boom day's.

kv

Mmmmmm, we have a bit of conflicting info there, I'll try locate my resources again.
The crower cycle sounds interesting. I'll also look into it.
Will also get to GM ultralight, but I almost think VW has built similar vehicles a couple of times before.

Yes turbine and jet is "just" about the same thing. Not really, but... what the heck.
Fuel hogs they may be, but really efficient.

My definition of an IC engine is something that is trying to rip itself apart.
That's how come they are so inefficient, so something new would be great.
But everyone is at a loss as to what.