bowlofsalad
100 kW
http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/two-100-hour-scientific-tests-confirm-anomalous-heat-production-in-rossis-e-cat/
Two 100 hour tests confirm heat production of e-cat
- Thread starter bowlofsalad
- Start date
liveforphysics
100 TW
bowlofsalad said:
If they are measuring it the same very sketchy way the last test I saw was measured (thermal sensor bungs in the in-flow and out-flow with a bulk flow meter), it's extremely easy to fake simply by internally ducting say 5% of the bulk flow to absorb all of the thermal gain and be emitted just in front of the temp bung.
I want to believe in this as badly as anyone, but everything they've done from the beginning has reeked of scamming, and when somebody with a real ability to test it comes it magically doesn't work that day, then they claim hundreds of design changes, but you can look at the photos of the sample units on the crude solder marks and corrosion patterns and things match exactly from the "early" units they show.
If you had to pick any group to fool/scam with a test, a bunch of college professors would be about the easiest marks to trick/fool IMHO.
That said, I do REALLY REALLY want it to be real, because if it's real, it's the end of all petrol companies and we won't need a central power grid, we won't be mining/transporting/burning billions of tons of coal, even wind/solar/hydro power will not be needed. It will take more than a con-man designed setup for some professors to get tricked by before I will believe it though. If it is real, it needs to be entering mass production ASAP rather than fooling around trying to lure more VC money etc. If you recall, this same guy had his massive scale scam for turning plastic into oil as well that simply faked evidence to experts to gather funding, collected a huge pile of plastic garbage, then bailed on the project because nothing about it ever worked.
Dauntless
100 TW
As there yet been an actual report of what this really IS? If so, I missed it. If it's not radioactive, then what is it? Not so fast on it doing away with all the other energy, first they have to prove it's cost effective, not going to end all life as we know it on Earth, etc.
So many devices in the past, operating in public yet somehow seeming even then to be behind closed doors. I guess what Mr. Physics is trying to say that when they are SOOOOO public, and yet. . . . It just has a bad feeling.
What happens in such cases is you have people who admit they haven't been able to see anything yet, but they still make predictions about why it's a trick. Such as with the Dean Drive. . . .
So many devices in the past, operating in public yet somehow seeming even then to be behind closed doors. I guess what Mr. Physics is trying to say that when they are SOOOOO public, and yet. . . . It just has a bad feeling.
What happens in such cases is you have people who admit they haven't been able to see anything yet, but they still make predictions about why it's a trick. Such as with the Dean Drive. . . .
SamTexas
1 MW
bowlofsalad said:
The greatest discovery of all. They just changed the most fundamental thermodynamic laws we have been relying on for centuries.
POS!
salty9
1 kW
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I recall visiting a kinetic art exhibit at the Seattle Center some years back. Everyone was marveling at a large open work arrangement of moving wheels and gears that had no obvious motive force. There was even some mention of perpetual motion. It had a large leaf spring disguised as part of the frame.
Drunkskunk
100 GW
I used to play around with magic when I was a kid. While I was never very talented, I could convincinly pull a coin out of your ear(sometimes), or show you the card you were thinking of (probably). As a career, I wasn't going to make it, but as a life lesson, it was invaluable. Magic is nothing more than convincing people that they see what you want them to see, in a way that keeps their focous off what you don't want them to see. With a little preperation and some basic slight of hand, you can apparently pull a rabbit from a hat, saw a woman in half, make the statue of liberty dissapear, or even generate power with the E-Cat.
I concede that Andrea Rossi is a genius. It takes a true genius to come up with a trick like this, and to find new ways to keep tricking people long after the smoke and mirrors have been spotted. Really, I think Rossi missed his calling. With a little more flash and style, he'd have made it big on stage in Vegas.
I concede that Andrea Rossi is a genius. It takes a true genius to come up with a trick like this, and to find new ways to keep tricking people long after the smoke and mirrors have been spotted. Really, I think Rossi missed his calling. With a little more flash and style, he'd have made it big on stage in Vegas.
cal3thousand
10 MW
This is an excerpt from an article claiming that Rossi turned down $1M in a chance to prove his machine:
Australia’s most famous businessman, Dick Smith, offered $1,000,000, with no strings attached, to an Italian inventor if he could prove his cold fusion invention works.
But despite being given a week to think it over, the inventor, Bologna-based Andrea Rossi, rejected the offer immediately, and in no uncertain terms.
Rossi publicly described the offer as “clownerie”.
“If this guy wants to test a 1 MW plant and has 1 million to spend he can buy a 1 MW plant, with a regular contract, that gives him all the necessary guarantees and to us the logic financial guarantees. Our plants Are tested by Our Customers and the Consultants they choose. I have not time at all for this clownery. Besides: when Our E-Cats will be in the market, this ‘millionaire’ will have the chance to buy for few hundred dollars an E-Cat and test it as he wants, so why waste money? I do not need his money.
Something about that reply doesn't resonate well with me.
Australia’s most famous businessman, Dick Smith, offered $1,000,000, with no strings attached, to an Italian inventor if he could prove his cold fusion invention works.
But despite being given a week to think it over, the inventor, Bologna-based Andrea Rossi, rejected the offer immediately, and in no uncertain terms.
Rossi publicly described the offer as “clownerie”.
“If this guy wants to test a 1 MW plant and has 1 million to spend he can buy a 1 MW plant, with a regular contract, that gives him all the necessary guarantees and to us the logic financial guarantees. Our plants Are tested by Our Customers and the Consultants they choose. I have not time at all for this clownery. Besides: when Our E-Cats will be in the market, this ‘millionaire’ will have the chance to buy for few hundred dollars an E-Cat and test it as he wants, so why waste money? I do not need his money.
Something about that reply doesn't resonate well with me.
Hillhater
100 TW
Sadly, theis latest report is yet again a relatively unsophisticated series of tests conducted with and reported by the same group of "supporters" who have been promoting the ECat for the past few years.
It was also yet again conducted in Rossi's lab rather than in a independent location.
What happened to the various "independent evaluations that were being lined up ?
What happened to the NASA interest ?
What happened to the commercial/Industrial installations that were being touted last year ?
So, soooo, frustrating to anyone who wants to believe in this game changer ?
It was also yet again conducted in Rossi's lab rather than in a independent location.
What happened to the various "independent evaluations that were being lined up ?
What happened to the NASA interest ?
What happened to the commercial/Industrial installations that were being touted last year ?
So, soooo, frustrating to anyone who wants to believe in this game changer ?
SamTexas
1 MW
If you are frustrated then they (the scammers) have won. The have succeeded in planting some doubt, and that's all they need to continue to get people to buy or to "invest" in their product.Hillhater said:
The laws of thermodynamics say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Their claim:
is in direct contradiction with these laws, therefore it cannot be true. It's that simple.
salty9
1 kW
The hucksters (I include lawyers, preachers and politicians) depend on the large percentage of people who never outgrew the "Wishing makes it so" stage of life.
cal3thousand said:
it's this part
SamTexas said:
the only problem with that logic is you're assuming there are no other forms of energy left to be discovered.
there will always be unknowns & consequently the absolute requirement to keep an open mind for scientific inquiry.
that fact is unfortunately something that con-men will always be able to exploit.
Dauntless
100 TW
SamTexas said:
The point is it CAN be true. That's what nuclear power is all about. The theme of the novel 'The Scarlet Letter' is that the greatest lie is the truth. The Preacher tells you on and on about what a dirtbag he is, everyone believes he's saying that because he's so pious. They're talking about something that CAN be true, but. . .
salty9 said:
. . . .My big feeling is that SOMEBODY has gotten hold of his info by now, maybe more than one somebody, without finding anything useful in it. We're living in that age.
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:
DOOOH! It's KILLING me that you beat me to it. Read that line, was chomping on the response, then I read yours.
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:
You also beat me to that. Keep in mind there could also be things just as deadly as radioactivity that we don't even know how to detect yet. Getting back to the wanting to believe there'll be those REFUSING to believe in that if this thing is producing them while generating nearly free electricity.
I actually have to back Rossi up on his response. $1 million won't mean much if this works, some dog and pony show just to prove to someone who may or may not pay up if he does it would be a distraction.
The Church Lady said:
salty9 said:
But we should be having fun with this. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/fake-pm.htm
http://www.skepticaleye.com/2012/11/perpetual-motion-machines.html
[/quote]
salty9
1 kW
[/quote]
[/quote]
The Sphere should be a very tough sell for over unity claims as any serious e-cyclist is exquisitely attuned to energy acquisition, storage and use.
For the racers among us, it extends to their ATP levels.
The Sphere should be a very tough sell for over unity claims as any serious e-cyclist is exquisitely attuned to energy acquisition, storage and use.
For the racers among us, it extends to their ATP levels.
oldpiper
1 kW
'
Oh, ye of little faith,it HAS to be True! After all, they won't let just anybody write a blog on the Internet, of all places!
Cameron
Oh, ye of little faith,it HAS to be True! After all, they won't let just anybody write a blog on the Internet, of all places!
Cameron
cal3thousand
10 MW
SamTexas said:
It's not that simple. They are claiming that they have a nuclear reaction going on a controllable and exothermic scale. So, theoretically, it is possible. It's just not possible in practice based on the technology we have available.
But even fusion reactors cannot control the reaction such that an net gain is made, so this is where the skepticism comes in. It's like Doc Brown's nuclear reactor on the back on the DeLorean in BTTF II. He's claiming this machine does on a small scale what billion dollar plants currently cannot.
bowlofsalad
100 kW
There are other ways to locally produce plenty of power. Not enough people talk about small thorium plants.
I enjoy watching ted talks. One talk I saw recently spoke of small nuclear fission plants which sounded promising. http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_my_radical_plan_for_small_nuclear_fission_reactors.html
If you are interested in the ecat, I wouldn't be surprised if you've heard of both of these ideas already. If not, they are up your alley.
I am sure some of us one day dream of something like a mr. fusion strapped to the back of their bike. Even if the ecat ends up being a total scam or whatever, oh well, my hopes and dreams aren't crushed, I am sure there are other ways. It'd be nice to get together with a bunch of people in my area and collectively purchase, produce, fabricate or some how make the means to produce all the power we and others need, maybe one day.
My dream, one of my hopes or goals is to have such a tremendous abundance of power that we can give it away for free, or at least the technology for making that power.
I enjoy watching ted talks. One talk I saw recently spoke of small nuclear fission plants which sounded promising. http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_my_radical_plan_for_small_nuclear_fission_reactors.html
If you are interested in the ecat, I wouldn't be surprised if you've heard of both of these ideas already. If not, they are up your alley.
I am sure some of us one day dream of something like a mr. fusion strapped to the back of their bike. Even if the ecat ends up being a total scam or whatever, oh well, my hopes and dreams aren't crushed, I am sure there are other ways. It'd be nice to get together with a bunch of people in my area and collectively purchase, produce, fabricate or some how make the means to produce all the power we and others need, maybe one day.
My dream, one of my hopes or goals is to have such a tremendous abundance of power that we can give it away for free, or at least the technology for making that power.
John in CR
100 TW
bowlofsalad said:
Dream??? It happens every day with the sun shining and wind blowing. It just doesn't work that great for BIG who just want their regular monthly payment from the sheep. What we need is better batteries.
Dauntless
100 TW
No no, it doesn't work that way at all because solar and wind are the most expensive energy sources out there, at least for the immediate future.
Oh, there's such an abundance of energy right now, it's just that it keeps getting more and more expensive. Don't waste time dreaming of giving it away. The problem is you'll whine and whine about WANTING these more expensive sources, but you'll also whine about paying the additional cost.
But now you went and did it: You convinced me to unleash the knowledge of the near unlimited energy fossil fuel that they've at last begun to produce. This is it, the Doomsday Fuel. Here in this thread I was worried about the discovery of new dangers in the fuel, yet there's one new fuel that ups the ante of Boogeymen we already know all too well.
When I was a kid, the talk was that we were running out of oil. Since then there's been the realization that there was far more oil in the Middle East, Mexico, Russia, Africa, etc., than we realized. Oh, the discovery in the Dakotas. Yet the price rises. Why?
Well, again, when I was a kid, the idea was that the U.S. had something like one sixth of the world population, but used one third of the energy. The U.S. population didn't double, but the world population more than quadripled. The U.S. has been surpassed in energy consumption by multiple countries. Yet that rising oil price turned natural gas profitable. Ever see old oil well photos where they're burning off all that unwanted natural gas? Now they drill gas wells. The energy consumption rises, so does the price. That makes new things profitable, so there's more and more energy.
So go read this thread, as well as the link I provided. Get ready to say "Oh my GOD!!!!" Remember, they've already begun recovering this energy.
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=50324
Oh, there's such an abundance of energy right now, it's just that it keeps getting more and more expensive. Don't waste time dreaming of giving it away. The problem is you'll whine and whine about WANTING these more expensive sources, but you'll also whine about paying the additional cost.
But now you went and did it: You convinced me to unleash the knowledge of the near unlimited energy fossil fuel that they've at last begun to produce. This is it, the Doomsday Fuel. Here in this thread I was worried about the discovery of new dangers in the fuel, yet there's one new fuel that ups the ante of Boogeymen we already know all too well.
When I was a kid, the talk was that we were running out of oil. Since then there's been the realization that there was far more oil in the Middle East, Mexico, Russia, Africa, etc., than we realized. Oh, the discovery in the Dakotas. Yet the price rises. Why?
Well, again, when I was a kid, the idea was that the U.S. had something like one sixth of the world population, but used one third of the energy. The U.S. population didn't double, but the world population more than quadripled. The U.S. has been surpassed in energy consumption by multiple countries. Yet that rising oil price turned natural gas profitable. Ever see old oil well photos where they're burning off all that unwanted natural gas? Now they drill gas wells. The energy consumption rises, so does the price. That makes new things profitable, so there's more and more energy.
So go read this thread, as well as the link I provided. Get ready to say "Oh my GOD!!!!" Remember, they've already begun recovering this energy.
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=50324
oldpiper
1 kW
I originally put this in Dauntless' thread he refers to in the Alternate Energy forum, but am moving it up here because I think it will get read by more of us:
Re: Fire Ice, Your CleanBurningDoomsayAbundantEnergyoftheFuture (concerning methane hydrate on the seafloor)
Methane hydrate (methane clathrate and other variations) has been known for quite a while. They are found on (and under) the ocean floor at moderate depths (300-500+ m). Shallower water doesn't present enough pressure to hold the methane within the ice crystal structure, and deeper water compresses the ice enough to produce closer-packed crystals which squeeze the methane out. And the water has to be cold (which it is there), so, yes, global warming may lead to some of this ice melting and methane getting out. But it's highly unlikely that all of the ice will melt/release the methane at one time so the Earth will suddenly be engulfed in a big Doomsday flash fire to destroy everything, or even just the coasts - it's not all that abundant.
And, yes, there was a Japanese research project to see if the methane could be recovered in the highest concentration deposits, which worked, but it wasn't all that easy to get it out, not like you just stick a pipe in and let the gas flow. It took a considerable amount of energy to release it.
Cool picture, though. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on the subject, including a short bit on how the BP engineers trying to deal with Deepwater Horizon didn't consider methane hydrate in their initial attempts to stop the bleeding and pushed back the final solution by a couple of months (egotistical idiots, but that's another story).
Cameron
Re: Fire Ice, Your CleanBurningDoomsayAbundantEnergyoftheFuture (concerning methane hydrate on the seafloor)
Methane hydrate (methane clathrate and other variations) has been known for quite a while. They are found on (and under) the ocean floor at moderate depths (300-500+ m). Shallower water doesn't present enough pressure to hold the methane within the ice crystal structure, and deeper water compresses the ice enough to produce closer-packed crystals which squeeze the methane out. And the water has to be cold (which it is there), so, yes, global warming may lead to some of this ice melting and methane getting out. But it's highly unlikely that all of the ice will melt/release the methane at one time so the Earth will suddenly be engulfed in a big Doomsday flash fire to destroy everything, or even just the coasts - it's not all that abundant.
And, yes, there was a Japanese research project to see if the methane could be recovered in the highest concentration deposits, which worked, but it wasn't all that easy to get it out, not like you just stick a pipe in and let the gas flow. It took a considerable amount of energy to release it.
Cool picture, though. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on the subject, including a short bit on how the BP engineers trying to deal with Deepwater Horizon didn't consider methane hydrate in their initial attempts to stop the bleeding and pushed back the final solution by a couple of months (egotistical idiots, but that's another story).
Cameron
John in CR
100 TW
The methane hydrates sounds great, but it's still just BIG wanting their monthly nut. Building solar and/or wind into a houses price makes it plenty cheap and once you switch to electric for transportation the home system can provide your transportation energy needs too. It's especially easy if you give up the idea that a 2,000kg machine is needed to transport 100-200kg. A wholesale change in the machines that move us is what's needed. The fuel is only part of the problem.
Dauntless
100 TW
Who said anything about a flash fire, have you read anything about Methane Hydrate yet? It's a greenhouse gas, 25 times so over carbon dioxide, as mentioned in the article. If it burned that would be an IMPROVEMENT, but if it melts it doesn't burn, it just goes to work on climate change. The recovery effort is a delicate balance, it cannot survive being removed from its' resting place. Don't know what they'll call the equivilent of an oil spill, but that's an instant disaster.
Why look at the energy to recover it? Does anyone look at the energy to recover undersea oil? When they recover natural gas on land they burn some of the very gas they're recovering to power the operation. Such would be the same for Methane Hydrate, a huge improvement over the fact you can't just burn the oil out at sea and have to transport fuel out there, so they'll be great energy savings with Methane Hydrate.
But you're still burning a fossil fuel, so there's always some greenhouse gas and warming at stake.
Why look at the energy to recover it? Does anyone look at the energy to recover undersea oil? When they recover natural gas on land they burn some of the very gas they're recovering to power the operation. Such would be the same for Methane Hydrate, a huge improvement over the fact you can't just burn the oil out at sea and have to transport fuel out there, so they'll be great energy savings with Methane Hydrate.
But you're still burning a fossil fuel, so there's always some greenhouse gas and warming at stake.
bowlofsalad
100 kW
This methane ice concept is pretty interesting, but it certainly seems like something to worry about. I am sure we have all heard of oil spills, they aren't infrequent. Methane spills is something I'd imagine would surely happen. I imagine it is unlikely that something would or could happen like a deep horizon with methane ice, but it seems possible and something to be very concerned with. We already harvest methane and burn it (LNG car) in cars and use it for other things. Running out of fuels is not a concern. Gasoline costs, really the costs of most things, is non-sense and frequently costs are artificially (as suggested) inflated for profits, this is one of the many downsides to a society based on money, and capitalism.
Something that seems unclear to me is what happens to the methane once it burns, what does it turn into? According to this http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/combust.asp the end result is CO2 and H2O. I don't want to drag this into a massive climate change ramble, but some folks are concerned with the release and creation of molecules such as CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CH4 (methane). I think that is the primary concern in energy production, air quality and dirty power. Many want power that produces little to no negative export, especially concerning air quality. So the amazing reveal of LNG or methane reserves being massive isn't really all that important to many. Many have other priorities.
As far as the wind/solar idea, it's a pretty hefty cost or price up front. Beyond the cost, the only other issue is reliability. Unless everyone has a fairly large amount of wind and solar setup with batteries storing the excess, we would still need to have a fair amount of peak or excess power production in other ways. It seems likely that no matter what, some ideas or places would still need their own tremendous forms of power production that would exceed what even large scale wind and solar could produce and store. Think of smelters and certain kinds of factories, apartment complexes, industrial areas can suck down a shockingly large amount of power. I love the idea of having power that would only fail if a home was destroyed and that was always completely reliable, the really solid form for that is likely something like ecat or something similar with things like thorium or fission for backup or peak.
An interesting concept for energy storage are water towers. When there is an excess of power, you can use pumps to pump water up high in a water tower. Then release that water through a turbine into a holding pool to be pumped back up when needed.
If it were up to me, I would put most of my marbles in small fission and/or thorium facilities with overlapping redundancy.
Off on a slight tangent, it could be that those who make up gas prices aren't evil profiteering conspirators. Perhaps they are trying to guide us fools away from dirty combustion fuels and lead us towards other, cheaper options. Who knows, maybe this is all silly pointless speculation of people who couldn't possible have any serious effect on these ideas.
Something that seems unclear to me is what happens to the methane once it burns, what does it turn into? According to this http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/combust.asp the end result is CO2 and H2O. I don't want to drag this into a massive climate change ramble, but some folks are concerned with the release and creation of molecules such as CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CH4 (methane). I think that is the primary concern in energy production, air quality and dirty power. Many want power that produces little to no negative export, especially concerning air quality. So the amazing reveal of LNG or methane reserves being massive isn't really all that important to many. Many have other priorities.
As far as the wind/solar idea, it's a pretty hefty cost or price up front. Beyond the cost, the only other issue is reliability. Unless everyone has a fairly large amount of wind and solar setup with batteries storing the excess, we would still need to have a fair amount of peak or excess power production in other ways. It seems likely that no matter what, some ideas or places would still need their own tremendous forms of power production that would exceed what even large scale wind and solar could produce and store. Think of smelters and certain kinds of factories, apartment complexes, industrial areas can suck down a shockingly large amount of power. I love the idea of having power that would only fail if a home was destroyed and that was always completely reliable, the really solid form for that is likely something like ecat or something similar with things like thorium or fission for backup or peak.
An interesting concept for energy storage are water towers. When there is an excess of power, you can use pumps to pump water up high in a water tower. Then release that water through a turbine into a holding pool to be pumped back up when needed.
If it were up to me, I would put most of my marbles in small fission and/or thorium facilities with overlapping redundancy.
Off on a slight tangent, it could be that those who make up gas prices aren't evil profiteering conspirators. Perhaps they are trying to guide us fools away from dirty combustion fuels and lead us towards other, cheaper options. Who knows, maybe this is all silly pointless speculation of people who couldn't possible have any serious effect on these ideas.
oldpiper
1 kW
Sorry, Dauntless, I read "Doomsday" and my mind slips quickly to one day Apocalypses (Apocalypsi?), Bruce Willis, What's-his-name Goldberg, Mel Gibson, the physicists at CERN creating the earth-swallowing black hole, and possibly the most devastating disaster of all, Teletubbies. The only thing I could think of along those lines was some kind of spontaneous widespread fire.
Yes, I know what methane hydrate is, but I don't think it is any risk down there. Even with the predicted global warming, the surface water temperature will change things up here, but there would be minimal temperature change at those depths, after all, the whole wide ocean is a humongous heat sink.And the pressure down there would be able to keep the clathrate stable for all but the very shallowest deposits.
Maybe we could mine it. Drag it on a conveyer in a continuous tube up towards the shore (after all, we're talking continental shelf), as far as where the conditions are favorable for the clathrate to break down, let the methane flow out as a gas at the shore end to be used, possibly even recovering the water if it's clean enough (it will at least not be as salty as ocean water). Then send it into the existing pipelines for distribution. Oh, BTW, bowlofsalad, methane does make only carbon dioxide and water when it burns. and carbon dioxide is a much weaker heat absorber than methane. (I see you don't like capitals, but please at least write them CO2 and CH4 even though we don't have subscripts, just the long-term teacher in me)
Dauntless, you ask "Why look at the energy to recover it? Does anyone look at the energy to recover undersea oil? " You bet your sweet bippy the energy companies do. If they spend more energy to get the oil than they get from it, they go broke. EVERYTHING is put on a spreadsheet and the ROI (return on investment) is King. Even projects which just won't make "enough" profit are filed in the circular file before the first exploratory boat is launched.
But, back to the eCAT and nuclear fuel of various sources. Like you, BigMoose, I'd like to see it work, but I just don't believe it. There have been too many mistakes (I'll be nice and not call them all scams here) in the cold fusion business since Fleischmann and Pons. And if What's-his-name isn't going to let his gadget be independently tested multiple times by reputable scientists (we're supposed to be skeptics, that's a scientist's job), then I won't waste my time with him. As for other nuclear power sources like the mini-power plants which (GE?) is designing, well the main problem I have with them is that the metal container walls and heat-exchanger pipes eventually become brittle from radiation damage and the whole assembly has to be junked (securely) in a couple of decades or so. That adds up to a lot of waste and nowhere to put it. Not that I'm against all nuclear power, but we're going to need a real mixture of energy sources for the foreseeable future in order to not mess any one element of our environment too much to recover from it.
Off my soap box now,
Cameron
P.S. If I've misspelled a lot in here, I forgot my readers and am really squinting at the screen to see anything.
Yes, I know what methane hydrate is, but I don't think it is any risk down there. Even with the predicted global warming, the surface water temperature will change things up here, but there would be minimal temperature change at those depths, after all, the whole wide ocean is a humongous heat sink.And the pressure down there would be able to keep the clathrate stable for all but the very shallowest deposits.
Maybe we could mine it. Drag it on a conveyer in a continuous tube up towards the shore (after all, we're talking continental shelf), as far as where the conditions are favorable for the clathrate to break down, let the methane flow out as a gas at the shore end to be used, possibly even recovering the water if it's clean enough (it will at least not be as salty as ocean water). Then send it into the existing pipelines for distribution. Oh, BTW, bowlofsalad, methane does make only carbon dioxide and water when it burns. and carbon dioxide is a much weaker heat absorber than methane. (I see you don't like capitals, but please at least write them CO2 and CH4 even though we don't have subscripts, just the long-term teacher in me)
Dauntless, you ask "Why look at the energy to recover it? Does anyone look at the energy to recover undersea oil? " You bet your sweet bippy the energy companies do. If they spend more energy to get the oil than they get from it, they go broke. EVERYTHING is put on a spreadsheet and the ROI (return on investment) is King. Even projects which just won't make "enough" profit are filed in the circular file before the first exploratory boat is launched.
But, back to the eCAT and nuclear fuel of various sources. Like you, BigMoose, I'd like to see it work, but I just don't believe it. There have been too many mistakes (I'll be nice and not call them all scams here) in the cold fusion business since Fleischmann and Pons. And if What's-his-name isn't going to let his gadget be independently tested multiple times by reputable scientists (we're supposed to be skeptics, that's a scientist's job), then I won't waste my time with him. As for other nuclear power sources like the mini-power plants which (GE?) is designing, well the main problem I have with them is that the metal container walls and heat-exchanger pipes eventually become brittle from radiation damage and the whole assembly has to be junked (securely) in a couple of decades or so. That adds up to a lot of waste and nowhere to put it. Not that I'm against all nuclear power, but we're going to need a real mixture of energy sources for the foreseeable future in order to not mess any one element of our environment too much to recover from it.
Off my soap box now,
Cameron
P.S. If I've misspelled a lot in here, I forgot my readers and am really squinting at the screen to see anything.
bowlofsalad
100 kW
http://hydrofusion.com/news/wanted-pilot-customer-for-ecat-1-mw-plant
"Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself, installation and any transportation costs. In return the Pilot Customer agrees upon
Scheduled Installation time by late fall 2013.
Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation to use the Pilot Plant as a Showcase where external customers can be introduced to an ECAT 1 MW in operation.
Hydro Fusion is open to any type of heat application given the restriction of a maximum 120 C temperature. The ECAT’s energy specifications are:
Heat energy is produced according to specs.
Heat energy 1 MW thermal at up to 120 C
Heat exchanger from ECAT system to customer heat application.
Electricity is consumed according to specs.
250 kWe maximum power consumption
166 kWe average power consumption, i.e. COP=6
Hydro Fusion would like to receive quotations from Pilot Customers on both thermal MWh price and electric MWh price, based on an assumption of 7,000+ operating hours per year. Please specify clearly if your quotes depend on the outdoor temperature.
Pilot Customers, with an interest in this game changing technology, are kindly asked to contact us at info@hydrofusion.com. Please write “Pilot Customer” in the subject of the email."
I am not trying to make any statements or claims, just passing along information that might be interesting.
"Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself, installation and any transportation costs. In return the Pilot Customer agrees upon
Scheduled Installation time by late fall 2013.
Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation to use the Pilot Plant as a Showcase where external customers can be introduced to an ECAT 1 MW in operation.
Hydro Fusion is open to any type of heat application given the restriction of a maximum 120 C temperature. The ECAT’s energy specifications are:
Heat energy is produced according to specs.
Heat energy 1 MW thermal at up to 120 C
Heat exchanger from ECAT system to customer heat application.
Electricity is consumed according to specs.
250 kWe maximum power consumption
166 kWe average power consumption, i.e. COP=6
Hydro Fusion would like to receive quotations from Pilot Customers on both thermal MWh price and electric MWh price, based on an assumption of 7,000+ operating hours per year. Please specify clearly if your quotes depend on the outdoor temperature.
Pilot Customers, with an interest in this game changing technology, are kindly asked to contact us at info@hydrofusion.com. Please write “Pilot Customer” in the subject of the email."
I am not trying to make any statements or claims, just passing along information that might be interesting.
