โApr-28-2015 12:33 PM
โApr-28-2015 06:32 PM
โApr-28-2015 06:18 PM
Ductape wrote:
There's some oversight in much of the commentary on this thread. There is no energy or matter being created with any of these processes, just stored, converted, and moved.
All those dead dinosaurs that seem to be so popular are nothing other than stored solar energy. Somehow I doubt the conversion efficiency was 100%. It just looks good because we can burn up in a day what took many years to store, but we weren't around during the storage process.
If PV cells capture energy during the day, and convert that to stored liquid fuel at a higher energy density than batteries, it's a gain. AS PV prices come down and oil prices rise, those lines will intersect and cross someday.
OTOH, I suppose we should have really stayed with coal and steam engines. After all, what was wrong with that???
โApr-28-2015 06:17 PM
โApr-28-2015 05:55 PM
agesilaus wrote:
OK first Wilbur1:
This may be a dead end but how far does has throwing up their hands and saying nothing new is possible got anyone.
=======================================================
There are many thousands of engineers and scientists that are working to come up with 'new ideas'. But they prefer to devote their time and money to ideas that can work not to perpetual motion machines.
And for jus2shy:
Fueling at sea and maintaining a fleet of boats that are floating gas tanks is a pain. Being able to produce fuel on demand and cut down on the fleet size....
============================================
Huh, you've lost me. Do you expect the Navy to build the infrastructure to make this material which will cost them 3 to 6 times as much as fuel costs delivered to their tanks? Why buy a cow when all you want is a glass of milk? Especially when there are plenty of private businesses which will be happy to sell you that drink.
And let me clue you in, Naval aux tankers are needed for at sea refueling not for use in port.
โApr-28-2015 05:54 PM
BenK wrote:
Another is the desalination systems...in years past...Thought to be too big and consumes too much energy for shipboard...
โApr-28-2015 05:49 PM
โApr-28-2015 05:32 PM
โApr-28-2015 05:31 PM
agesilaus wrote:
You think the Navy is going to set up a fuel production factory inside a Carrier?! Let me guess you have never been on a Carrier or any other naval vessel.
โApr-28-2015 05:28 PM
โApr-28-2015 05:20 PM
agesilaus wrote:
And for jus2shy:
Fueling at sea and maintaining a fleet of boats that are floating gas tanks is a pain. Being able to produce fuel on demand and cut down on the fleet size....
============================================
Huh, you've lost me. Do you expect the Navy to build the infrastructure to make this material which will cost them 3 to 6 times as much as fuel costs delivered to their tanks? Why buy a cow when all you want is a glass of milk? Especially when there are plenty of private businesses which will be happy to sell you that drink.
And let me clue you in, Naval aux tankers are needed for at sea refueling not for use in port.
โApr-28-2015 05:17 PM
โApr-28-2015 05:11 PM
โApr-28-2015 05:09 PM
โApr-28-2015 04:58 PM
โApr-28-2015 04:56 PM