The Light

Subjects that don't have their own home
User avatar
Paul Barker
Loony Bin!
Posts: 9219
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#16 Re: The Light

Unread post by Paul Barker »

Only on the part of this conversation relative to CO2 emissions.

My last senior of my fathers blood his youngest brother now 90+ was only telling me last night about early motor vehicles.

One thing he mentioned, the waste heat of internal combustion is inefficient. He remembers a time when the waste heat powered a steam cylinder.

He also mentioned vehicles that brought a gas plant for internal combustion of their own. You put any old wood and coal in it. Harvested the gas for youre engine. He told me the name but it has escaped me. Something like “bring along”

Baxi in collaberation tried an additional electricity generating Sterling engine powered by waste heat of combustion. It was about £10,000 the measly amount of electricity generated never made up for the enormous cost of the unit, even with the feed in tarrif. The units were utterly unreliable and most of them were given up on.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15947
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#17 Re: The Light

Unread post by Nick »

Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Andrew
Eternally single
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 2:18 pm

#18 Re: The Light

Unread post by Andrew »

Nick wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:12 pm Carbon 12
Oxygen 16

so 1 Carbon + 2 Oxygen = 44

44 * 2 / 12 = 7.3

So 2,000,000 tons of coal of 100% carbon and entirely converted to CO2 would produce 7.300.000 tons of CO2

So the figure looks entirely possible.
what is the volume of gas
1 mole of CO2 (or any gas) occupies 22.4 dm^3 at s.t.p, where 22.4 dm^3 is called molar volume of a gas at s.t.p.

One mole of carbon dioxide molecules has a mass of 44.01g

7,000,000 tons = 1016.05 * 7,000,000 kg = 81,235,000 kg = 1,845,830,494 moles of CO2 = 41,346,603,044dm^3

So the answer is 41,346,603,044L or 41.3 million cubic meters

So a cube 435 m per side or 26 cubic football fields

unless there are some errors in the above.
> 44 * 2 / 12 = 7.3
I am curious why you multiplied by 2 Nick?
Analogue, the lost world that lies between 0 and 1.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15947
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#19 Re: The Light

Unread post by Nick »

I am curious why you multiplied by 2 Nick?
Probably because it started with 2 million, though I may be wrong
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Andrew
Eternally single
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 2:18 pm

#20 Re: The Light

Unread post by Andrew »

OK so 1000 anthracite produces 3600 C02, that makes sense :)
Analogue, the lost world that lies between 0 and 1.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15947
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#21 Re: The Light

Unread post by Nick »

Yes, just using the atomic weight of C and O.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
izzy wizzy
Old Hand
Posts: 1499
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: Auckland NZ
Contact:

#22 Re: The Light

Unread post by izzy wizzy »

Paul Barker wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 11:20 am One thing he mentioned, the waste heat of internal combustion is inefficient. He remembers a time when the waste heat powered a steam cylinder.
The beginning of the condensing boiler and such like.
User avatar
shane
Social outcast
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: Kept in a cool dry place.

#23 Re: The Light

Unread post by shane »

Nick wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:12 pm So 2,000,000 tons of coal of 100% carbon and entirely converted to CO2 would produce 7.300.000 tons of CO2
So producing that 7.3m tonnes of CO also removes 5.3m tonnes of useable O2 from the atmosphere? Hadn’t thought of that before.
What will happen comes closer. What has happened goes further away.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15947
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#24 Re: The Light

Unread post by Nick »

izzy wizzy wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:46 pm
Paul Barker wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 11:20 am One thing he mentioned, the waste heat of internal combustion is inefficient. He remembers a time when the waste heat powered a steam cylinder.
The beginning of the condensing boiler and such like.
A more modern version would be the MGU-H

https://f1.fandom.com/wiki/Motor_Generator_Unit_-_Heat
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Post Reply