# The solution to our energy problem: Natural Gas!

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by joepistole, May 11, 2008.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
There are plenty of sources of energy. It is all a matter of cost. Nuclear fusion is an idea. There is also another using a varation on the theme of the gravity plane...using lighter than air gases to raise an object to a height and then capture the energy generated as the object falls to earth. Talk about cheap, that is very cheap energy.

3. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
We will likely see a concert of many different alternatives, but common features will be increase energy efficiency and electrification of ground transport.

Yeah, and how much energy to you spend to raise it up there? Breaks the first law of thermodynamics.

MOTHERBRAIN-UTAH,

Keep Dreaming.

5. ### KlippymitchThinkerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
699
Any leading natural source will be pushed to higher price levels by investors. investors are pushing oil prices higher and they will do the same with natural gas if they think they can make money off of it. So in time nothing would change.

7. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Well I never liked the first or second laws anyway!

So if there is a law I want to break, those are the ones!

The issue here is with the lighter than air gas. When you get to some altitude it must change density to become heavier than air...else one would have to dump the lighter than air gas and one would have to again incur the cost of gas collection. An example of such a gas would be air itself...hot air more specifically. One could use geothermal processes to heat the air for the device.

This will not replace much of our energy need for various reasons. But it is an interesting way of producing electricity...using geothermal processes to lift a turbofan, use gravity and friction to produce electricity on the way down. It is an interesting idea.

Last edited: May 18, 2008
8. ### scorpiusa realistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,251
you can in Alberta,not at every one but enough to be convenient to use.
most airport shutle buses run on natural gas or propane.
and at 65 cents a litre its half the cost of gasoline...

costs me only 100$a month to heat my house Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Im not sure its too good for engine longevity though as propane has no lubricating properties like gasoline so it might destroy the valves, at least that used to be the biggest problem while back,maybe they make better valves now. better idea that Id like to see would be multi fuel hybrid electric car or truck so you could switch to any fuel any time. 9. ### Diode-ManAwesome User TitleRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,372 Have any of you seen a Fresnel Lens? It is pretty much a really big magnifying glass that has been constructed of plastic which focuses sun light into a dense point of high heat.... Make a giant Fresnel Lense! The biggest I've seen is like 4 by 3 feet... why not... 24 by 18 foot Fresnel!?!? That, I dare say, could produce quite a lot of power using steam turbines.... THE CATCH: whenever the sun is shining. I bet its better than solar panels though, and could dramatically reduce the usage of fossil fuels. LINK TO YOUTUBE.COM SHOWING A FRESNEL What of advanced methods of harvesting the oceans waves? Last edited: May 18, 2008 10. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member Messages: 18,523 Why a steam, why not stirling cycle? Fresnel lenses can't be made very large. look up wave energy. 11. ### Diode-ManAwesome User TitleRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,372 Ahh.... so we couldn't make a 24 X 24 foot Fresnel? 12. ### Diode-ManAwesome User TitleRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,372 Perhaps if we poured enough resources into advanced scientific research into creating more effective Stirling cycle engines.... Surely something could be done 13. ### Echo3RomeoOne man wolfpackRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,196 Also, you'd have to take transmission efficiency into account. Some of the incident sunlight will be absorbed by the media and converted to heat, having further consequences on the lens's refractive indeces. As a general rule, a parabolic mirror will be a more efficient reflector anyway. 14. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member Messages: 18,523 I don't think its a matter of efficiency, its matter of mass production, Stirling are as efficient as their cycle will allow. I would think if you wanted efficient use of solar energy you would have a solar power tower lined with tripled junction GaAs photovoltaic cells being cooled rapidly and the waste heat used to desalinate water. With that array you could get >30% solar-electric conversion efficiency, verse ~10% for a steam cycle solar power tower. 15. ### Diode-ManAwesome User TitleRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,372 A solar dish farm covering 11 square miles hypothetically could produce as much electricity per year as Hoover Dam, and a farm 100 miles by 100 miles in the southwestern U.S. could provide as much electricity as is needed to power the entire country. CLICK ON PARAGRAPH FOR ENTIRE ARTICLE This is an interesting article: A solar dish farm which focuses sunlight onto a Stirling Engine which has hydrogen inside instead of just air... It will cost a lot of money to get something like that going, those corporations will rake in a great deal of cash in this process, there must be a way to reduce the price and still keep things operating. This is a group effort, those corporation's employees, scientists, CEO's, and their families would be using the power from such a venture. Them and all their friends, and friends friends, will be benefiting from cleaner air as we reduce our use of coal and oil.... 16. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member Messages: 18,523 And how will it provide power at night? 17. ### Diode-ManAwesome User TitleRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,372 Well, the main point, is that it will REDUCE coal and oil usage. At least buying us time until our oil does indeed burn out. And also reducing pollution. I'm not suggesting we actually do this, unless it could be done economically and built to last. 18. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member Messages: 18,523 Oil is barely used for electricity, intermittent renewables like solar and wind can only provide 15-25% of the electric grid before energy storage is needed for high percentages. I would say nuclear and geothermal are wise options for base load power. 19. ### Diode-ManAwesome User TitleRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,372 Hmm... geothermal... Would it be foolish to dig a pit in attempt to put a power plant near the magma in the Earth? 20. ### Diode-ManAwesome User TitleRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,372 How much energy can be derived from hemp oil for bio fuel? Or would that increase food prices since it would take up a lot of land that would normally be used for growing food crops? Oil is just too easy. 21. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member Messages: 18,523 No, 2nd generation biomass does not compete with food. Perineal grasses need no fertilizer, little irrigation and grow on land not viable for food production. 22. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member Messages: 23,198 " -- Royal Dutch Shell Plc plans to deploy a vessel “much larger than an aircraft carrier” off the coast of northwestern Australia to house the world’s first floating liquefied natural gas plant. - the biggest ship in the world are backed by the largest exploration budget of any oil company, estimated at$31 billion this year and \$28 billion in 2010, Brinded said. The project is among more than a dozen that may propel Australia to second among global suppliers of the fuel from fifth now. The fields, 100 percent-owned by Shell, lie in the Browse basin off Australia’s undeveloped Kimberley coast, where more than a third of the nation’s known offshore gas is located. Floating LNG is important to Australia because of the remote fields within its waters that remain uneconomic in the absence of this technology

The green patch is soccer field (bigger than US football field)

The untested method is a “game- changer,” allowing discoveries that are small and too far from the coast to justify onshore plants to be profitable … Floating LNG facilities may take less than half the time to build compared with onshore units and may cost a third of an onshore plant. The project will produce about 3.5 million metric tons of LNG annually and 1.3 million metric tons of condensate, a type of light oil … "

FROM: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a73_3w.OfbI8

Messages:
22,910