[SamT]

significant strides

 

hardly significant.  Carbon Capture and Storage is such a buzz work.  Sounds so good doesn't it, the answer to all our prayers.  Carry on burning the diesel and jet fuel willy nilly.

Its laughable really.  I've seen news reports saying "this new power station is 'CCS ready'", which cutting through the bull, means they've bought the field next door ready to build something, when they know what one looks like. 

Funnily enough, nature has given us amazing CCS machines, they're called trees and coral reefs, but we're busy burning them down/trashing them at an unprecedented rate to make way for our beef farms etc.

Hell in a hand cart.

[Kingy]

All of that is true. Surely we should try all avenues though. Reduce fossil fuel consumption and capture CO2? Why would we limit our options?

[sdm]

We make a lot of use of Teams, bluejeans, WhatsApp, BIM, email, phones etc both internally and with clients (~99% of our projects are not UK based, nor are the majority of our team).

But our ability to use them is often hampered by rigid security/IT systems at our clients that prevents them from communicating in these ways. This requires a lot of otherwise avoidable flights for face to face meetings.

Where working remotely is possible, it is great in most cases. However, it just isn't effective for conflict resolution on large collaborative projects where English is a second language for most people and where there is a clash of cultures. At the risk of making a sweeping generalisation, if you want any results with any of our Chinese, Arabic or southeast Asian clients/collaborators, you're going to have to meet face to face.

[SamT]

Totally agree, however I think over egging an 'idea' such as CCS when really, its still very much an 'idea' is dangerous, as it delays action on the 'cutting fossil fuels' side of things.

[Oldmanmatt]

Here is an interesting study on cutting edge carbon dioxide capture research. Seems like significant strides are being taken in this area. Might enable us to kill some of the CO2:

https://www.deccanherald.com/science-and-environment/new-material-efficiently-captures-carbon-dioxide-768035.html

"The new material developed by the researchers is a porous polymer -- PCP, also known as MOF or metal-organic framework -- consisting of zinc metal ions.

The researchers tested this material using X-ray structural analysis, and found that it can selectively capture only carbon dioxide molecules with ten times more efficiency than other PCPs.

When carbon dioxide molecules approach the structure, the researchers said that the molecule rotated and rearranged to trap the gas molecules.

This resulted in slight changes to the molecular channels within the PCP, allowing it to act as a sieve which can recognize molecules by their size and shape, the study noted.

The researchers said that the PCP is also recyclable with the efficiency of the trapping process not decreasing even after 10 reaction cycles."

Wow! I want some of this for my Rebreather!
(Soda Lime reacts like buggery with water, making rebreathers tricky to use underwater).

[Oldmanmatt]

Totally agree, however I think over egging an 'idea' such as CCS when really, its still very much an 'idea' is dangerous, as it delays action on the 'cutting fossil fuels' side of things.

I know, right.


Especially when there’s these magic rocks, that just emit energy, 24/7/365. You can dig them right out of the ground. No shit, I kid you not!
So much energy, they burn you if you pick them up with bare hands...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13545-nanomaterial-turns-radiation-directly-into-electricity/

[petejh]

I still haven't heard a totally convincing answer to a question I've asked a few times over the years after having this idea while travelling back from a visit to client at a gas-fired power station:

Why don't we turn the road network into a power station? A power station boiled down to basics is just a bunch of moving parts - magnets spinning inside copper coils etc.. We have all the moving parts we need in the road network - us!
By putting magnets on the bottom of vehicles and burying copper coils in the road, couldn't we produce electricity through electromagnetic induction as the magnet travels over the coil? Obviously it would be a fossil fuel power station to begin with. But if the vehicles weren't powered by fossil fuel..

Engineers please explain the flaws. I'm assuming there's drag involved. And obvs there's no such thing as free energy. But wouldn't it increase the efficiency/utility of the vehicle's fuel-source by using the momentum that it generates to generate some electricity as well as move people from A to B?

[andy_e]

[Oldmanmatt]

I still haven't heard a totally convincing answer to a question I've asked a few times over the years after having this idea while travelling back from a visit to client at a gas-fired power station:

Why don't we turn the road network into a power station? A power station boiled down to basics is just a bunch of moving parts - magnets spinning inside copper coils etc.. We have all the moving parts we need in the road network - us!
By putting magnets on the bottom of vehicles and burying copper coils in the road, couldn't we produce electricity through electromagnetic induction as the magnet travels over the coil? Obviously it would be a fossil fuel power station to begin with. But if the vehicles weren't powered by fossil fuel,.. Also wouldn't it increase the efficiency/utility of the vehicle's fuel-source by using the momentum that it generates to generate some electricity as well as move people from A to B?

Engineers please explain the flaws. I'm assuming there's drag involved. And no such thing as free energy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current_brake

[petejh]

So that makes me ask two questions:

Why not use eddy current braking at junctions (or even, when driverless cars take over use eddy current braking between vehicles). And use the stored converted heat energy for something useful? Wouldn't a million (guessed figure for illustrative purpose) decelerations per day across a hundred thousand junctions produce a meaningful amount of energy?

And what happens in a power station generator to the eddy current brake, how is it worked around?

[Ru]

I still haven't heard a totally convincing answer to a question I've asked a few times over the years after having this idea while travelling back from a visit to client at a gas-fired power station:

Why don't we turn the road network into a power station? A power station boiled down to basics is just a bunch of moving parts - magnets spinning inside copper coils etc.. We have all the moving parts we need in the road network - us!

It would be massively inefficient, cost lots of billions, involve digging up the road network, be very hard to achieve from an engineering pov (Apple for instance has abandoned plans to make a charging mat that can charge an iphone and its own watch at the same time as it was too difficult) etc.

[petejh]

Yeah thought there must be obvious reasons why it doesn't happen. Still don't quite understand how it works in a spinning generator in a power station without drag making it ineffective; yet doesn't work in a moving vehicle across a coil.

A quick search shows it's starting to be done in reverse to what I wondered about - charged coil buried in road, transfer energy to vehicle rather than vehicle charges coil. For charging electric vehicles
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/21/18276541/norway-oslo-wireless-charging-electric-taxis-car-zero-emissions-induction

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607902/the-case-for-building-roads-that-can-charge-electric-cars-on-the-go/

If the source of the energy in the charging coil is renewable then isn't that getting near a cheaty definition of 'free energy'?

[Oldmanmatt]

So that makes me ask two questions:

Why not use eddy current braking at junctions (or even, when driverless cars take over use eddy current braking between vehicles). And use the stored converted heat energy for something useful? Wouldn't a million (guessed figure for illustrative purpose) decelerations per day across a hundred thousand junctions produce a meaningful amount of energy?

And what happens in a power station generator to the eddy current brake, how is it worked around?

Loses innit.

In an alternator, the loses are partially mitigated by the inertia of the rotor, once at stable speed.
However, that mitigation is lost, if the “rotor” (read: moving part) is accelerating. It’s by far the least efficient part of a generator’s operating cycle (or a motor, come to that).

Currently, our power generation (that’s a misnomer, since what we actually do is convert one form of energy (usually chemical) into mechanical, into electrical and lose, lose, lose at every step) is incredibly inefficient. Your proposal is not technically unsound, since it would generate power, it just wouldn’t be efficient enough to benefit anything.
Then there is the unstable nature of the current/voltage produced, to consider. A stable speed alternator gives a stable frequency current and voltage, which is much easier to utilise.
The storage of the “power” is also problematic.
     

[Steve R]

Wouldn't a million (guessed figure for illustrative purpose) decelerations per day across a hundred thousand junctions produce a meaningful amount of energy?

Already solved - electric cars (well I know Teslas do, not sure about other manufacturers but presumably do too) have regenerative braking which can recoup lost kinetic energy under braking/deceleration and get it back into the car's battery at ~70% efficiency.  I reckon you could just give every motorist in UK a Tesla for less than it would cost to undertake some version of the proposed engineering nightmare and would smash it in efficiency too (and actually work).   

[gme]

I couldn't disagree more with this.

Interesting we're so at odds with this (I'm aware of where you work). Are you sure about inefficiency? For instance, every 3 months I go to an event in London (hosted by a University) which for some reason isn't broadcast (well it is, but only to one office in Scotland). It takes me pretty much the entire working day to get to the train station (Preston), get into London and back for ~3 hours of content and its incredibly hard to be productive when travelling. Its fine if I need to read something specific or have lot of emails to catch up on but where I am now the latter isn't a thing. That day isn't a good use of my time; I struggle to imagine how the online meetings I have with people could be improved to the point they 'bought back' that time.

Likewise, one of the main reasons for me changing employment was the ability to be more flexible with when and how I work, so like others 'in the office' (I'm now at a place employing ~5 people which is a significant change) I work from home a few days per week. Mostly, I'm far more productive at home than at the office (even when PeeWee drops around for a brew). Even at my previous place, I could sometimes manage to work from home and those days were incredibly productive (and I often worked far more than my hours etc.).

Nat is currently on the other end, as a Client using a large civil engineering Consultancy and she's definitely glad of the ability to Skype call rather than several discipline-experts (with heavy day rates) booking travel, time and expenses etc. in her direction (her budget simply couldn't cope). Likewise, she's a tad over-stretched and travel time is increasingly wasted time.

There was also a significant investment of time in training for the use of such facilities by my previous Employer.

We dont have the issue with travelling for one meeting as its pretty much always easy enough to bolt on other client visits/surveys/site visits etc. We rarely travel by car so can work on the train.

We still do a lot of stuff via skype etc but only the menial stuff and like most people 90% of communication is via email which whilst efficient is without doubt the biggest cause of conflict and aggravation in my business something you rarely get when face to face.

[tomtom]

I reckon you could just give every motorist in UK a Tesla for less than it would cost to undertake some version of the proposed engineering nightmare and would smash it in efficiency too (and actually work).

:D And lots of folk would sell their Tesla and go back to their 15 year old cars

[Ru]

Already solved - electric cars (well I know Teslas do, not sure about other manufacturers but presumably do too) have regenerative braking which can recoup lost kinetic energy under braking/deceleration and get it back into the car's battery at ~70% efficiency.

Yes, this is a great idea because the motor is also the generator meaning very little extra hardware is needed. Electric vehicles also have the potential to solve demand fluctuations on the grid meaning that less capacity is needed. Most cars are only used for short journeys meaning that a lot of the time they are sat around with full batteries plugged into the grid. If most people had electric vehicles that's terawatts of power sitting there. You could charge at times of low demand and put back into the grid at high demand times. Clearly that would mean that the high and low demand times would be smoothed, but that would possibly mean that there would need to be less peak capacity.

[abarro81]

If the source of the energy in the charging coil is renewable then isn't that getting near a cheaty definition of 'free energy'?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point... but no. Moving energy from EM radiation or wind form into electrical form is just moving energy around, not making free energy.

Lots of people working on vehicle-to-grid like Ru says.. need to get it right though, if you screw up with management you could end up with more peak demand and not the other way round (people come home and plug car in in the evening). Charging at work car parks a good way to go for this as it's better matched to solar resource in general...

[tomtom]

Already solved - electric cars (well I know Teslas do, not sure about other manufacturers but presumably do too) have regenerative braking which can recoup lost kinetic energy under braking/deceleration and get it back into the car's battery at ~70% efficiency.

Yes, this is a great idea because the motor is also the generator meaning very little extra hardware is needed. Electric vehicles also have the potential to solve demand fluctuations on the grid meaning that less capacity is needed. Most cars are only used for short journeys meaning that a lot of the time they are sat around with full batteries plugged into the grid. If most people had electric vehicles that's terawatts of power sitting there. You could charge at times of low demand and put back into the grid at high demand times. Clearly that would mean that the high and low demand times would be smoothed, but that would possibly mean that there would need to be less peak capacity.

I think - one of the main issues with this is how our grid is structured - as in its designed to take power from central points (power stations) and distribute kind of radially down to eventually consumers (gross generalisations here..) rather than have more distributed sources/stores.

I'm not sure the below have been factored into the EV storage calcs - that every time you charge and discharge your EV's battery it shortens its lifetime (even by a teeny bit) with the battery being the single largest cost item on an EV (50% of value/manufacturing cost?), also the performance of EV batteries is impaired by the temperature (e.g. they like to operate between 15-30 degC) so modern EV's have battery heaters and coolers - whether all this is engaged/used/part of a grid storage I don't know. Maybe this is all factored into those plans - just saying its not as simple as just having a big battery sat on the driveway (if you have one).

I would love an EV. But living in a terraced house - where street parking is at a premium (its rarely outside where I'm living) at the moment its a no-no. There are ways around this for charging of course (higher capaicites and charging at work/garages/set locations etc..) but this does largely prevent using the EV battery for grid storage.

Whilst rambling about EV's - whilst the carbon impact is important, I think at the moment the most compelling argument for them is with regard to air quality. Living in a city - its horrible - especially on a still winters morning in rush hour.

[Oldmanmatt]

Seriously, guys.
Nuclear.
Nuclear batteries in particular.

I know as a former RN Engineer, I’m slightly biased in the eyes of outsiders, but the reality is I’m just much more familiar with the true risks of Nuclear power, compared to the perceived.

Even at 1970’s tech, it’s perfectly possible to build a nuclear battery, around, say, Tritium or similar ( that emit Beta (easily shielded)) and use that to trickle charge the main cell of a vehicle. Thus it would always be “regenerating” when idle.
These Betavoltaic cells were common for things like pacemakers, until Lithium batteries became more economically attractive.

The NS article I linked to above, introduces a concept that is an order of magnitude shift in the potential power output of a Nuclear battery, possibly completely replacing the conventional cell entirely.

I immediately start thinking about replacing batteries for capacitors, for peak demand etc etc.

Our fear of Nuclear power and it’s “invisible killer rays”, has blinded us into following an actually far more lethal path.

Stop, consider Chernobyl (about  as bad as a nuclear reactor accident can get), then realise it was a stupid, old fashioned, use of the technology and the worst possible public relations incident any technology could have.
Then, look at how many people actually died.
Then, realise you can now take a tour of the control room.

But, mainly, remember, fusion isn’t even required to generate power from radiation! You don’t even need heavy shielding or Gamma emitting scary stuff.

 

[SA Chris]

Why not just use anti-matter?

[tomtom]

well.. a quick google puts the disputed (may be much higher or lower) death toll associated with Chernobyl at 6000-10000. Cost at $225 billion, and the local area is uninhabitable for 20 000 years.

Fukashima has alread cost $187 billion.

[teestub]

And any nuclear source still relies on extractive industry for its source.

[petejh]

If the source of the energy in the charging coil is renewable then isn't that getting near a cheaty definition of 'free energy'?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point... but no. Moving energy from EM radiation or wind form into electrical form is just moving energy around, not making free energy.

Yeah you’re misunderstanding my point but I didn’t word it well. I realise you can’t ‘make’ or destroy energy. It was more a figure of speech for getting energy from carbon-free processes and using it for both transporting people and energy generation - by turning people travelling into the moving parts of a generator.


Matt - so if inertia from spinning rotors is a way that power stations partly mitigate the inefficiency eddy currents, could you find something large and heavy that moves at a relatively constant speed, and use it for power generation? Say a large cargo ship or passenger ferry. Coming into dock use electromagnetic rails either side of it and eddy current to decelerate, instead of liquid fuel.
Also wonder why we haven’t got solar-powered ships - large surface area and plenty of capacity for massive heavy batteries?

[Oldmanmatt]

well.. a quick google puts the disputed (may be much higher or lower) death toll associated with Chernobyl at 6000-10000. Cost at $225 billion, and the local area is uninhabitable for 20 000 years.

Fukashima has alread cost $187 billion.

You know more people die in road accidents every year? Every year.

You know how many more die from air pollution, every year?

( https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ )

Our current habits are far more lethal! Not to mention, way more expensive. Add to that, the vast difference between fission reactors and nuclear batteries, in terms of risk etc. Then look at the likelihood of repetition...

Nope, our fear of the bogie man called radiation blinds us to the possibilities.

Which renewable tech does not require “extractive” industry for it’s source? Do wind turbines now grow fully functional from GMO pumpkin  plants? I must have missed the fields of organic Stainless Steel crops and Copper vineyards.
Probably hidden by Green houses where they grow the Lithium...


Sorry, snarky I know. But everybody forgets these thing are only “relatively” green.