Replacement for oil? I don't think... / Chemistry / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: Chemistry

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Replacement for oil? I don't think...

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

FastMHz

Wed May 24 2006, 03:17AM

Registered Member #179 Joined: Thu Feb 16 2006, 02:08AM
Location: Hagerstown, Maryland - Close to Prime Outlets
Posts: 287

I'm no chemist, but supposedly this guy has developed a new method of electrolysis that is much more efficient:

Video:

Is it a hoax or could it actually be for real?

Home Page:

Desmogod

Wed May 24 2006, 03:26AM

Registered Member #139 Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 11:01AM
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 358

This has been postulated many many times before in many different ways.
The question is how much power does he need to actually seperate the H and the O atoms from each other.
I wonder where this power comes from. Probably his fossil fuel based local power station.

Carbon_Rod

Wed May 24 2006, 05:04AM

Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155

I believe itâ€™s called a Pollution Relocation Device. There are more than a few of these technologies around now -- Some as simple as car Smog and yet others like fission reactors.

People have been experimenting with water for a long time. Wet chemistry is well explored and seemingly beyond some of these folks understanding (at least their PR.)

As for mysterious metal cutting â€“ bah â€“ ask anyone who owns a boat with an unbalanced prop or the old space stationâ€™s water purifier that cracked water.

Btw: Why do people think Oilâ€™s value is just related to gasoline and fuels etc. Oil is actually too valuable to be simply burned. There are many chemical by-products like cheap plastics and chemicals people take for granted. Unfortunately some are rather unique to the refinement processes and may be lost for good.

ragnar

Wed May 24 2006, 08:16AM

Registered Member #63 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:18AM
Location:
Posts: 1425

I'm not alone =D

carbon_rod, your point of view is what I generally try to preach - that the (limited) fossil fuels should be used in applications where the end product is often reusable i.e. polymers.

next few decades (years?) will be 'Interesting'.

Bored Chemist

Wed May 24 2006, 06:18PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

Actually, we don't have an oil shortage problem; we have an energy problem. More specifically we have a clean energy problem (and the site linked above does nothing to help).
Given a cheap source of energy I can tell you how to extract CO2 from the air by distillation, reduce it to carbon with magnesium, (regenerated electrolytically) and use that carbon to make synthetic oil, in the same way that South Africa did with its coal.
Without that energy we are stuffed.

Thingmaker3

Sat Jun 17 2006, 04:52AM

Registered Member #124 Joined: Fri Feb 10 2006, 01:30PM
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 35

US Patent number is 6689259.

He's not made electrolysis more effeicient - he's made it more practical. He's come up with some safety and convenience features.

Ben

Thu Jun 22 2006, 12:45PM

Vigilatny
Registered Member #17 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 02:47PM
Location: NL
Posts: 158

Carbon_Rod wrote ...

I believe itâ€™s called a Pollution Relocation Device. There are more than a few of these technologies around now -- Some as simple as car Smog and yet others like fission reactors.

I think fission reactors as pollution relocation devices is a bit of a stretch. They are a a much cleaner but potentially dangerous form of energy production.

Carbon_Rod

Sat Jun 24 2006, 09:50PM

Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155

Spent fuel is usually stored in large 6â€ thick stainless steel tanks surrounded by a 14â€™ razor wire fence because itâ€™s so environmentally friendly. Some reactor sites have been stockpiling the waste for years â€“ still others have a policy that they do not recycle the fuel like the European system. Still the spent fuel eventually has to go somewhere.

However I must agree that not all reactors are as dangerous to operate or maintain. My point was that nuclear materials should be used for scientific applications and not a consumer item like electricity.

Ben

Mon Jun 26 2006, 11:09PM

Vigilatny
Registered Member #17 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 02:47PM
Location: NL
Posts: 158

Carbon_Rod wrote ...

Spent fuel is usually stored in large 6â€ thick stainless steel tanks surrounded by a 14â€™ razor wire fence because itâ€™s so environmentally friendly.

I thought it was because they could be used to easily make nuclear weapons.....

Carbon_Rod wrote ...

Some reactor sites have been stockpiling the waste for years â€“ still others have a policy that they do not recycle the fuel like the European system.

The European system? This must be new. The only decent recycling system I've seen is the Canadian CANDU system.

Carbon_Rod wrote ...

However I must agree that not all reactors are as dangerous to operate or maintain. My point was that nuclear materials should be used for scientific applications and not a consumer item like electricity.

What scientific application is there that requires large amounts of uranium?

Jim

Tue Jun 27 2006, 12:28AM

Dunce.
Registered Member #28 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 03:29AM
Location:
Posts: 76

Development of weapons, of course, Ben.

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob