I don't seem to understand. You're taking molecules at lowers states of energy and putting them into a state of higher energy. That's the opposite of a spontaneous reaction and it seems that this would net a negative gain in free energy. I'm just saying, the science makes no sense.
English
-
At a certain level science is no longer o intuitive.
-
[quote]At a certain level science is no longer o intuitive.[/quote] What does that mean?
-
Edited by Britton: 4/29/2015 3:56:48 PMIt means things like quantum physics go against our intuition.
-
Edited by CrazyLincoln: 4/29/2015 4:09:18 PMThis is chemistry. We understand chemistry and from what I read you would have to put more energy into the system then you would get out of it.
-
Edited by Britton: 4/29/2015 4:11:39 PMThat's how all fuel works. Thats why we pay $ for it.
-
[quote]That's how all fuel works. Thats why we pay $ for it.[/quote] No it's not! Crude oil is already in a high state of chemical energy!
-
It still gets refined.
-
Yes! Because it's in a state of high energy. Do you know anything about thermodynamics and chemistry? You can't just take molecules in s lower state of energy and combine them. Those bonds cost energy to create. All we do is break the bonds that already exist in molecules that are in high states of energy.
-
Edited by Britton: 4/29/2015 6:28:56 PMA little, not enough to argue it honestly. But I know you can create compounds of higher energy from ones of lower energy. Example, dynamite, or the e-diesel in the thread above. To combine them does take energy, however its not impossible or uncommon.
-
You can. It just means that you have a positive number for delta G or free energy which means that you basically input more energy into the system than you got out.
-
What if the energy input is of negligible cost?
-
Then why would you bother wasting that energy by converting it into diesel? Energy is lost the more you convert due to heat loss into the environment. Most conversations only yield a small percentage of the actual chemical potential energy. It doesn't make sense. This just seems like an excuse to continue to run our vehicles on diesel because it sounds "eco" friendly. If we have energy in the form of excited elections why would we not skip the wasteful step of converting molecules into an expensive diesel producing process and simply use that energy as is to run vehicles? Why? Well, the industries that run on cheap hydrocarbon energy would lose their monopoly.
-
I understand what you're saying and I agree. I think this diesel is a good half way point between the perfect use of renewables, and weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.
-
I don't see that. The vast majority of energy comes from fossil fuels. This concept implies that we would have an abundance of energy coming from nature such as heat from the sun, wind (powered by the heating from the sun) and I suppose water moving down a hill (also caused by the heating if water from the sun). This will only exist in as a small fraction of the type of diesel fuel that will exist. I'd fully except this full to actual cost more as well. I don't see this having any impact what so ever besides convincing people that we can create energy out of thin air. Look at the numbers the energy department puts out. Nearly 80% of all energy comes from cheap hydrocarbons. There is almost no way this country could run on non renewable energy.
-
Edited by Britton: 4/29/2015 7:12:58 PMIts important to note this is being made in Germany, where they average over 25% of their annual electricity needs from renewables, and with highest achieved around 75% (I believe this was a single day). They already have a robust solar and wind energy program. So this isn't some out of place technology there.
-
Edited by CrazyLincoln: 4/29/2015 7:17:32 PM[quote]Its important to note this is being made in Germany, where they average over 25% of their annual electricity needs from renewables, and with highest achieved around 75% (I believe this was a single day). They already have a robust solar and wind energy program. So this isn't some out of place technology there.[/quote] Germany this might work. In America this would not. Important distinction. Germany has for along time been moving away from fossil fuel independence and yes you're right they get most of their power from the sun.
-
Yeah, I agree this would not currently work in america. We need to adopt a similar goal to that of Germany's, and start trying to power the country almost entirely on renewables on a reasonable timeframe.
-
Eh. I think there's more merit in the nuclear field. Check out "thorium reactor concept" some time.
-
Not bad, but it must be mined, which just creates more negative environmental affects. We have a giant source of light bathing us in free energy constantly. No mining, no carbon being released, etc. Solar is the best option for clean renewable energy. There will always be other sources needed to supplement, and nuclear would be great for that, but our primary goal should be getting the majority of our energy from the sun.