(April 3, 2020 at 5:01 pm)Succubus#2 Wrote:

(April 3, 2020 at 4:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What law of thermodynamics makes energy production impossible, and how do we explain the sheer existence of energy production if that's the case?

We don't produce energy we convert energy from one form to another and if you try to convert it back again there will be a net loss. That's what laws of thermodynamics states.

Of COURSE there’s a net loss - there always will be, but that’s hardly the point of recycled energy.

Boru

(April 3, 2020 at 5:44 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(April 3, 2020 at 5:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Is that a yes or a no?  Do you think that it takes more than 1700 kWh to produce a barrel of oil?

That's just it genius...

You did NOT produce it.

You simply moved it around a bit and filtered out the parts you like.

The plants - 300 million years ago MADE it.


See the difference?

What the fuck....?

Yes, plants were so kind as to put a bunch of usable energy into something...such that we were not required to put the same amount of energy into those fuels that we extract from them.

This source of energy, is the same source of energy, for the fuel in question.

(April 3, 2020 at 5:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 3, 2020 at 5:40 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Really?

You don't see were that falls flat on it's ass?

....


Not a whole lot of engineering types here, huh?

Could you explain it, please? I mean, the content-free sneering is adorable, but it doesn’t really move the discussion along.

Boru

Ok.. 

I'll keep this very simple.

Let's say you take 100 kilos of carbon out of the atmosphere... You combine it with hydrogen and burn it. You will emit 100 kilos of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Did you gain anything?

Nope.

You lost - and probably added more carbon to the atmosphere.

Why?

Anytime you change one form of energy for another, there is loss - in the form of heat. This heat does not magically appear - it has to come from somewhere.

And safe bet - it will come from the most economical source. 

Probably fossil fuels.

.....

The whole point is to not gain anything. To reuse what has already been emitted as pollution.

...to re....cycle.

(April 3, 2020 at 5:56 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The whole point is to not gain anything.  To reuse what has already been emitted as pollution.

...to re....cycle.

By making more pollution than you started with?

Wow.

Genius.

Sheer motherfucking genius
...




Edit to add...

This is a re-hash of a conversation I have had on more than one occasion - of some "genius inventor" - who wants to hook up a generator to an electric motor - and they assured me - "As soon as I get the gearing and all the efficiencies right - this will generate free power for years!".


Yeah sure Proffesor Goldberg... (Rube)

The point of remediation is to make less pollution, even if you consume more energy in the process.

Lets look at some of the stages in the fuel from Co2 proposal.
First we need to extract Co2 from the atmosphere and to do that we need Co2 scrubbers.

Like this one. And this is just the bit we can see, there's a whole bunch of other hardware involved in the scrubbing process.




This thing produces ~50 tons Co2 per hour. Now to produce enough green fuel to make any sort of difference we will need millions of the bastards and they use energy to function, lots of it. This Fucking ugly web page goes into some detail.
Now we have to convert the Co2 into oil and to do that takes some sort of processing plant which again, will require a large energy input. The whole shebang with its supporting infrastructure is going to cover thousands of square miles. Roads, pubs, housing, bars, shops, boozers. And this is just one installation. But then we don't build oil production facilities in the middle of duelling banjo country we build them near the coast or whatever.

So now we need to move the Co2 from Arkansas to some place sensible and to do that we need thousands of these:



At 25,000 horse power apiece!?!?

If you're spending £15 in order to make a £10 note you need to go back to business school.

Straight out of the gate, the idea is bollocks.

---

(April 3, 2020 at 5:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Is that what makes energy production impossible, in your estimation?

I mean, IDK what to say...there's all kinds of energy still left on the table, even after loss, even with recycled fuels.  However...since not all of that energy is useful energy, and since the energy that recycled fuels produce is useful energy, it isn't much of a concern for us.

It would be nice to capture even more, don't get me wrong..but...?

Lets be very clear here...you do understand that there is no law of thermodynamics which states that we, personally, have to put more energy into something...or even the same amount of energy into something, in order to extract energy.  You do get that, right?  The whole reason that we can produce recycled fuel of this sort is that something else put alot of energy into something..and we're not using all of it, even when we consume the product.  Hell, we're not putting the same amount of energy into the primary fuel...

...what the actual fuck?

Quote:If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

Arthur Eddington.

---

(April 3, 2020 at 5:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 3, 2020 at 5:01 pm)Succubus#2 Wrote: We don't produce energy we convert energy from one form to another and if you try to convert it back again there will be a net loss. That's what laws of thermodynamics states.

Of COURSE there’s a net loss - there always will be, but that’s hardly the point of recycled energy.

Boru

See #67

(April 3, 2020 at 6:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The point of remediation is to make less pollution, even if you consume more energy in the process

But the real world final results will show MORE pollution than you started with.
I am not pro-pollution.
I am in favor of solutions that work -
Like drastic.population control - to reduce real demand.

Looks like you got population control happening now, (more so if the virus mutates and starts killing younger victims)

Quote:But the real world final results will show MORE pollution than you started with.

Nope 

Quote:I am not pro-pollution.

No you pro eugenics 

Quote:I am in favor of solutions that work -

Accept it won't 

Quote:Like drastic.population control - to reduce real demand.

Won't work