A zero emissions engine?
 

Watched a video on this engine. Zero emissions seems interesting but won't appease the left.
These guys have ended the apex seal issues of wankel, but I can see oil sealing of the shafts could be a concern. We have the skills and materials to deal with it, I think.

Running on NG. Clean burn that way. NG still requires drilling so, as you say, the left won't warm up to it since it is not electric.

Yeah the problem is H2 is not a zero carbon fuel.

Ron, I don't think there is any fuel on earth that is carbon free when you look at getting it, growing it, etc.

If you look at total lifecycle no, nothing is zero carbon, its embodied into the manufacturing and extraction processes.

But most hydrogen today is extracted from natural gas leaving the carbon as a byproduct, just moving the carbon further from the exhaust pipe.

Until someone manages to separate hydrogen from water using renewable electricity at massive scale it's kinda pointless.

There's projects underway to try do that with off peak offshore wind in Europe but still with massive embodied carbon to start with.

I see the left as the problem.. Eliminate the left...Problem solved....:D

All this fretting over global warming and selecting humans as the primary cause is total bullshit. Burning of fossil fuels as a cause of carbon emissions is only at 3.27%. The rest comes from mother nature. Good luck changing mother nature.

Unicorn derived electricity...

Wind and solar will never supply modern demands, physics.

the EU produced more electricity from renewables than from fossil fuels in 2020, it swung back in 2021, never say never.

I don't get your "physics" point, there's orders of magnitude more wind and solar energy available than we could ever need. I would think chemistry, or lack of elements needed to harness it all would stop us long before physics would.

For "elements" read crude oil:)

The wind don't blow and the sun don't shine when you need the power, so viability of this depends on us finding a better storage system. The biggest fail of LiFePo chemistry is that the battery will be permanently damaged by charging at or below freezing temp.
The vanadium flow battery is, IMHO, the best and simplest thing going, but it won't fit in an electric car, so meh.

hydrogen isnt an energy source, its a battery. use your excess peak wind or sun to convert water to hydrogen and you can store and ship that hydrogen just like natural gas, either to power vehicles using combustion engines or to run gas fired power plants to fill the wind/solar troughs. it's not happening any time soon, but it is being trialled at scale. the Dutch are testing it in the North Sea as they have that excess wind/lack of wind problem

Johny your media is pissing on you and calling it rain. I have been
researching this for the day job for 2 years now.

Define your terms. The EU greenie weenies lump biofuels into renewables
to make the numbers look good. Also the finalized data from 2020 and 2021
are not available yet. Biofuels produce just as much CO2 as fossil fuels...

2019 EU used
2,800 TWh of electricity
426 TWh were from wind turbines
280 TWh were from solar

The big problem is your (EU) electrical generation capacity has flat lined since
2007 when woke western countries started closing down coal and fossil fuel
plants at a prodigious rate. You will not have the power to charger your new
fancy BEV cars.

BTW, we are doing the same stupid shit on this side of the pond. Flat lined
electrical generation since 2008, no new plants coming on line.

Nobody looks at the downside of the solar or wind farms. Solar farms destroy
the land and will render it sterile for decades after the solar farms are gone.
Every wind turbine will forever render 1/4 acre of land worthless. That is due
to the concrete ballast they leave in the ground.

Wind and solar are not the panacea you are being sold on. BTW, if you have
to buy an EV get a plug-in hybrid. That way you can still get somewhere
when your grid collapses. Because it will if we don't change where we are
headed. They are banning natural gas for heating and cooking in the EU and
the US. This just adds more demand to an already overloaded grid.

The cracking of water to base components is a terribly inefficient use of electricity. The energy returned by cracking is about 25% of what you put in. The return of useful energy is god-awful. People have been trying to do this since the 1920s and the math didn't work even then. Maybe now it does work out, when you can con the taxpayer into paying for everything.
The second issue where I agree with Ron and green smoke, is that you cannot pressurize hydrogen and pump it down the line to the customer. Have you heard of low hydrogen welding rods? Well yeah, we have long known that hydrogen weakens steel. It can penetrate the matrix of the metal and head for our space. The only effective way they have found to store hydrogen where it can't escape and destroy your pipeline is to turn it into a hydride. Lithium hydride works well, and then you can heat it, preferably with a petroleum product, and the hydride will release the gas. The lithium hydride can be hauled by truck to the end user.

Science is offensive to these people, almost as offensive as a constitution, which is the reason they had to get control of scientists and make them sing the approved tune. And they did.

Hydrogen is probably the most explosive gas we know of, as it has an explosive range from 4% to 74%. Gasoline has an explosive range from 10 to 15% and propane has a much narrower range.

To me, hydrogen is great news because the people who are going to get smoked, are the ones who deserve it, they will be the first in line for the kool-aid and hydrogen chaser.

First off, thank you for an actual answer as opposed to "physics"

Leaving aside the all the CO2 generated of producing biofuels for a moment..... The CO2 produced by burning biofuels is the same CO2 that the plants absorbed from the atmosphere, part of the natural carbon cycle, just like the methane from cow burps, or the CO2 we all breathe. its all going around in circles and will be absorbed by this years crops. The only new CO2 is that which is being released from the ground, either by burning fossil fuels or from gas releases underground or thawing permafrost

Totally agree.
They started closing more than that, they're closing a lot of the nuclear plants too. if there is enough lithium and cobalt in the world to make all the car batteries they won't be able to charge them any time soon. but they will be able to charge them someday. The problem is much bigger than power plants or batteries though. The grid infrastructure isn't there in most countries to get that power where it needs to be.

That's why the only future without fossil fuels to my mind has to have hydrogen as a major part. but derived from water, not natural gas.

Fossil fuel extraction destroys lots of land too, if nuclear goes wrong the same happens. there's lots of land that's already sterile in the world that gets a hell of a lot of sun that would be ideal for solar farming and there's lots of ocean out there too suited to offshore wind. none of this is black and white


I don't believe for one second that wind and solar are a panacea no more than I believe that they are pointless. they are part of the system, but in time I do think they have the potential to supplant fossil fuels. not soon, but also not never.



I might consider buying a battery car in a few years time, we've three vehicles between two drivers so having a battery commuter car might make sense in another ten years. I don't do new cars so I'll be sticking to my dino juice for now.

Battery cars are great till the thing dies . We lost a Civic Hybrid at only 234,000 as the battery died . The only charging for regular start came from the hybrid so could not even run on the litttle 3 cyl . So a good car that still used little oil was no longer worth repairing .

Umm fossils fuels came from plants that consumed CO2, so technically fossil fuels are bio fuels... :rolleyes:

Also is CO2 really bad for our biome?

Soooo, saw this article a while back. Here’s why I figure that the wind/solar thing is overblown.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...QPJilPwOS7notI


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah come on, not this again. You used the term biofuels first. And you used it to refer to fuels produced from crops grown today, not millions of years ago.

Fossil fuels are releasing CO2 that was removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago.

At a macro level no, nature changes and nature adapts. But if the vast majority of scientists are right then it's going to have serious implications for people and will trigger one of the most concentrated human migrations in history as people move to places that are more hospitable than their traditional homelands. That is likely to provoke serious social changes that might not be popular in the receiving country's and will provoke water wars in others where. The changes are less extreme.

We won't know for sure if the majority of scientists are wrong or right until it's all over.

Man and nature will survive, but it will be a bumpy journey. Man can in my opinion afford to change and it's one of those things where if we can, why wouldn't we? Because it's hard?

Yeah, at our latitudes solar is only any use as an input to a battery system. Off grid homes, camper vans, datacentres etc.

Renewable energy is only any use if you can store it. You either produce and store it locally using some sort of chemical battery technology or you use it to break the hydrogen out of water which gives you a fuel that can be handled largely the same way as natural gas. Not as easy as natural gas but easier than getting enough batteries and grid capacity to move the electrons from where they're easily produced to where they're needed.

Renewables as we currently use them are never going to get much beyond 60/70 of grid requirements because of the nature of how the grid works. We need nukes and fossil fuels to manage the system for the foreseeable.

See herein lies the dilemna. Even as a ‘direct’ employee of the oil industry, many of the workers realize that oil is a ‘finite’ resource at this point. Maybe wind and solar are part of the solution. Issue is, at this point in time, the cost versus the return still makes them experimental at best. However, to me, it seems that, for the most part, those costs are being paid by a handful, typically Europe, USA, Canada and a few others. Some of the big contributors, like China, don’t contribute 2 cents unless they can make 10 in return.

Why then, do I have to pay 10 cents to get a 2 cent return on my $$?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because it is important to the left, to crush industries they don't like. They were successful with nuclear and have never forgot it, or how to accomplish it.
CO2 is not even on the playing field when you compare it to water as a global warming gas.
And mass migration is driven, not by China, but by Soros Open Borders Initiative. We have seen what open borders have done to Europe. No. No thanks.

I do it for several reason, one to get people like you who buy into the agenda to
try to think for themselves, honestly I am not very successful. But you can't fix
stupid, even with duct tape.

The brainwashing of the Europeans is much more thorough than that of us North
Americans, I am really enjoying Canadian News lately, hey is Dildeaux still in hiding?

Millions of years ago in the 4.5 billion year old earth is not a lot of time.

I don't have time to explain chemistry and physics to everyone... and I hate
typing. But hydrogen is a stupid solution, for what Gerry said and a 1,000
more reasons. Look up liquid Hydrogen and see what kind of energy that
takes.

Not even that 20-30 year return on investment is a looser big time. If it was
not for government paying for these systems they would never get built. When
tax payers pay for things it brings the worst quality, return on investment and
inflated price structures forward. Tax funding of private business is never a
good thing, it destroys value. Always has and always will.

Average EV battery life is 150,000 miles.
Average EV battery replacement is $30,000 (that is an old number, likely higher now)

So who is going to dump $30k into a new battery on a car with 150k miles on it? So are EVx lower carbon, not really, short life cycles.

the west has allowed so much industry to go to china a huge amount of their emissions is just making our stuff with cheap coal so the western countries can go "yeay we're good, china is bad". we're running out of places to dump on and they're catching up at a fast rate with nuclear and battery cars and reducing coal imports (although that's more political than environmental)

I love talking to parrots, you just parrot back the crap you have been fed.

1. Research C3 and C4 photosysthesis. C4 evolved to deal with low CO2.
2. Most of our editable crops come from plant that use C3.
3. In the past 500 million years what have been.
-- a. the average number of glaciers on the planet.
-- b. the average CO2 levels.
-- c. what are the average CO2 levels during ice ages?
-- d. what are the average CO2 levels in the inter glacial periords.


Then think about the simple fact we are still exiting the last ice age. We are not out of it yet. There are still ice caps and glaciers, which is not normal for earth.

Oh and a majority of scientists do not support global warming, also the data shows global temps have flat lined since 1998...

its grossly inefficient, the only way the math works out is if it's waste electricity when supply exceeds demand

I dont see hydrogen being trucked around in any form for a long time, the only customers its likely to make sense for are power stations that will burn the hydrogen generated when the wind isnt blowing/sun isnt shining. there's a hell of a lot of money being invested by the gas industry in figuring that out as they have the most to lose or gain as the gas fuel incumbents.

yeah, as I said, nature changes and nature adapts. people are the ones that are going to struggle.

what percentage of scientists do you say don't support global warming theory?

As I said above and before I don't know if man is contributing to climate change or not, but I think the costs of doing something about it and it being pointless are minor compared to the risks of doing nothing about it and having a catastrophe.

It's expensive energy and reduced economic growth for wealthy nations vs potentially displacing vast populations who's lands could become unsustainable.

I realise that's an idealogical position that is the opposite to what many on here hold, and I'm not looking to change your minds. I enjoy the debate and the learning opportunities and find the technological advancements that are taking place fascinating.

>90%.

Yes we are... ;) Although I believe the Earth's climate is cyclical both hotter AND colder, many of the "climate" problems we face today are from exponential population growth. Until I see gov'ts start addressing the issue by discontinuing benefits for sperm dumpsters (ie: more $ for more kids), they can all blow their carbon offsets up their offset bungholes! :mad:

Seriously, think of the fields you used to play in that are now housing developments or the Amazon rain forest depletion, etc. Dry land is a VERY finite resource and until the population is controlled or decreased somehow, pollution and carbon in the atm. will continue to increase no matter what all the greenies propose. If this continues, in a 100 years the Earth will be unrecognizable... :(

Why dont we euthanized everyone with an IQ below 100?

Disagree . Those take jobs that only illegals will do . Sounds kind of like a feller from 33 till 45 .

Or at least spay and neuter them... ;)

:-) Sure it will, to those which live there. Consider what a person from 100 years ago would think of the Earth NOW. :-)
On the other hand over population is a real problem. The Covid "scare" didn't do much to control it. :-)
The book "The Stand" that some one here mentioned and I got from the library last Sat and am about half way through , has the right solution to it. :-)
...lew...

HIV did not ,Covid did not wonder what the next viral issue will be to try to lower the population of the earth . But think of the effect of a 25% drop in population would do to the financial stability of the world .

When I see or hear conversations of this nature I can’t help to be reminded of our values.

I have little argument that there are too many people, however I believe too many of them have bought into the values that corporations have been feeding us for several decades. There will come a time when we will have to choose what is important to us. Will it be a healthy environment and control of our lives OR values like speed, image, convenience, comfort and credit score. It seems we can’t have our cake and eat it too.

Forums like this that promote “do it yourself” philosophy offer a bit of hope but I’m not holding my breath. There seems to be too many carrots that are distracting people from realizing the part they have played that got us to where we are today. From what I hear there are “bigger and better” carrots coming soon.

The climate is changing. We can’t stop it. We have to adapt to survive.

Quit trying to plug the unstoppable leak and learn to float.

WTF could we possibly do to re-freeze the North Pole?***

And Antarctica is going steadily.

Look at the volcanos going right now. Electric cars and bicycles won’t fix that, and there is a good chance it will get worse.

***Nuclear Winter, But pray long and hard that we don’t resort to that.

Zeno’s Paradox

100 is the average of a population.

Kill the sub-100s and you have a new median. (Plus everybody instantly has twice as much stuff but ignore that for now.)

Then someone will argue that it worked really well and we should do it again.

Eventually you’re left with two people arguing over which one is smarter and therefore has the right to survive.

Cogito Ergo Boggum