Page 2 of 2

#16 Re: The Light

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2022 11:20 am
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.

#17 Re: The Light

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2022 11:39 am
by Nick

#18 Re: The Light

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 2:13 pm
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?

#19 Re: The Light

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:10 pm
by Nick
I am curious why you multiplied by 2 Nick?
Probably because it started with 2 million, though I may be wrong

#20 Re: The Light

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:47 pm
by Andrew
OK so 1000 anthracite produces 3600 C02, that makes sense :)

#21 Re: The Light

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:09 pm
by Nick
Yes, just using the atomic weight of C and O.

#22 Re: The Light

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:46 pm
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.

#23 Re: The Light

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 8:16 am
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.

#24 Re: The Light

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 8:55 am
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