Sell your Oil Nuke and Windmill Shares Today.

[walker 0]

Hi all

My Windmills are Defunct! :( :D

But so is Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal and Oil. :)

Harvesting 'limitless' hydrogen from self-powered cells

By Mark Kinver

Environment reporter, BBC News

US researchers say they have demonstrated how cells fuelled by bacteria can be "self-powered" and produce a limitless supply of hydrogen.

Until now, they explained, an external source of electricity was required in order to power the process.

However, the team added, the current cost of operating the new technology is too high to be used commercially.

Details of the findings have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14976893

As always follow the link to the article in full.

Lots of money in human and animal effluent as well as compost though!

Algae would make another good initial source. Then just make giant soup vats of the two out in the deserts or at sea.

Though tying in the genes direct by using a bio engineered form with its own photosynthesis might be useful, the risk of it running amok would have to be assessed first.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 20, 2011 by walker
spelling

[dm 9]

When did offtopic become "Walker's 'news of the day' spam-board" ? :/

[hellfire257 3]

It's always been that way, no?

[walker 0]

Hi all

Tradition!

gRdfX7ut8gw

Kind Regards walker

[PELHAM 10]

The first public hydrogen station opened in the UK today so I expected Walker would be in an excited state of self flagellation. Give it a few days, it will wear off........

As usual the press didn't ask any searching questions. We were simply told that it's green because the car burns the hydrogen and all that is produced is water. Hmmm lots of things missed out there but we have discussed all that before.

[hellfire257 3]

Who needs RSS feeds when you have Walker? ;)

[st_dux 26]

However, the team added, the current cost of operating the new technology is too high to be used commercially.

Small detail, no doubt.

[Dead3yez 0]

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT.

Come on.. Separating hydrogen from oxygen is an endothermic reaction and takes A LOT of energy. Doing it with bacterium just sounds futile.... Maybe if you want to wait ten years. rofl.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Separate-Hydrogen-and-Oxygen-from-Water-Through-El/

First you must use energy to separate hydrogen before you get any energy back.... If I remembered chemistry I'd be able to tell the exact amounts. It's useful for cars and shit because it beats waiting ten hours to charge a battery.

Nuclear > Bacteria.

Use nuclear energy to make hydrogen gas. Don't piss around with bacteria.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Dead3yez

[hellfire257 3]

Is anyone else dreading Walker's reply as much as I am?

[walker 0]

Hi Dead3yez

No Perpetual motion machine here. :)

The Bacteria in the reactor uses organic matter that it feeds on as its energy source, as well as a salt differential in the water, eg human/animal effluent, compost or Algae etc. So like every fossil fuel and green energy the primary source is the sun they act as the colector.

Here read

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/09/12/1106335108

It will be a while before it is industrialised. ;)

Essentially like every other fuel it is its ability to convert the solar energy to use able power that is important.

I would opt for Algae as the collector.

Also note the reactor produces both Hydrogen and excess electricity but like I say it is converting existing energy harvested by organic matter, it is primarily of interest in that it seems more efficient.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 20, 2011 by walker

[hellfire257 3]

I wonder how long a while is though... :(

I can't see energy companies wanting to switch to something that has the possibility to be produced cheaply if done right. They're not going to want to pass on the savings to their customers.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Doing it with bacterium just sounds futile.... Maybe if you want to wait ten years. rofl.

Actually this is what the experiment looks like:

;)

[Dead3yez 0]

It will be a while before it is industrialised. ;)

If ever. As far as I've read it relys on using bacteria to create energy. Come on now... There are so many alternative energy sources that are better than bacteria.......... bacteria. I could create more electricity by harvesting the same energy used to scratch my balls.

Actually this is what the experiment looks like

Ya. I was just showing the traditional method. ;)

[[aps]gnat 28]

Cool, so in the future you wont sit in the seat of your car, you'll shit in the seat of your car ..... awesome.

And fast cars are obviously driven my Big Shits

Wow ..... and there'll be more Truckstops on the road, all serving crap, so the truckies can get their big loads to the next one.

[PELHAM 10]

All these ideas are wonderful but no one ever provides any practical details or statistics.

How will it work on an industrial scale?

Will it be efficient?

Where will all the plant waste come from and do we produce enough?

How much additional electricity will the process use and where will that come from? Precisely how much CO2 is released and is that a good thing?

Will it produce more CO2 than current power sources when used on a world wide scale?

Without the facts, as usual its nothing but pretty pictures. No doubt some 'soft in the head' millionaire or government department will provide them with $millions to conduct the research without asking any pertinent questions. Can't knock it, it's a fantastic way to make a living.

additional:

have a look at this page: http://www.microbialfuelcell.org/MFC/index2.htm

All that to produce 0.263 volts. A tiny AAA battery gives you 1.5V - 1.25V

If you look at the other experiments on that page you will notice that many use some very toxic chemicals as mediators. Now it is possible to build these things without using mediators but is that practical? I suspect to be of any use the industrial plants that would carry out this process would be huge, many square miles. Also should they require the use of mediators there is the possibility of creating thousands of tonnes of toxic chemical waste every year. How will that be treated and disposed of? If you look at any of the websites there isn't really anything listed on the real world practicalities of actually getting it to work. They will all produce 100,000's tonnes of CO2 every year too. What will happen to that? CO2 capture requires lots of energy, where will that come from?

Edited September 21, 2011 by PELHAM

[st_dux 26]

I can't see energy companies wanting to switch to something that has the possibility to be produced cheaply if done right. They're not going to want to pass on the savings to their customers.

Am I reading this right? You don't think that energy companies have an incentive to produce energy as cheaply as possible? Um... of course they do. Any energy company that could come up with a way to consistently deliver energy for less than their competitors would be rolling in cash. Consumers would save and the company would earn enormous profits, expand, and hire more workers. That's how capitalism works.

[hellfire257 3]

Petrol prices in the UK should've gone down slightly recently. They never did. Same logic.

[st_dux 26]

Petrol prices in the UK should've gone down slightly recently. They never did. Same logic.

Says who? You? Price is determined by the market. A petrol company sets the price of gasoline no more than a gold prospector sets the price of gold. The price is what people are collectively willing to pay for it.

[Baff1 0]

I can't see energy companies wanting to switch to something that has the possibility to be produced cheaply if done right. They're not going to want to pass on the savings to their customers.

Of course they will want to.

It's called competition.

If they can provide energy for cheaper they will get the business. If they can't they will lose it.

If energy costs them less to produce, they can sell it for less and still add the exact same margin as they would make on more expensive energy.

The cost price of energy does not affect their profits except in the way that it limits the amount the end user can afford.

So if they can provide more for less, the end user will buy more energy in total, and they will earn more.

I've been getting about 5 phone calls a day from energy companies these last weeks. The idea that they don't all want to be cheaper than their rivals is ludicrous.

Moronic lefty conspiracy. Nothing more.

---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

Says who? You? Price is determined by the market. A petrol company sets the price of gasoline no more than a gold prospector sets the price of gold. The price is what people are collectively willing to pay for it.

Not one hundred percent true in this example.

80% of the price of petrol to end users in the UK is set by the government.

The UK is not a free energy market.

Also speculators have a significant affect on the price. Holding back the sale of fuel to the petrol companies until the demand raises the price.

I've heard this figure put at up to 7% of end user price.

It is true that the price is set by what people are prepared to pay for it, but not in a free market kind of way. The price of petrol is monopolised by the government here and fuel is perhaps to be considered as an essential supply. Something that it is more difficult for people to refuse to buy.

The ability for petrol companies to bring down the price of fuel is very limited indeed. For the most part, it is Chris Huhne and George Osborne who control the levers of that decision.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Baff1

[st_dux 26]

80% of the price of petrol to end users in the UK is set by the government.

The UK is not a free energy market.

I can't imagine that's an ideal situation, but nonetheless, the statement that petrol prices "should've come down" confuses me. Does the government release official price predictions or something like that?

[Baff1 0]

The government does release official price predictions for fuel, but I doubt if many read them.

The price of oil per barrel is public domain information so people can see on a day to day basis what the trends are.

Obviously the relationship between daily oil price and petrol price at the pump is not direct. Oil may be purchased days weeks and even years in advance of it's sale at the pump. And there may be a delay in response time for the new prices to work through.

But the trends nonetheless are apparent. So if oil prices have been dropping for some time, and no price drop has occoured at the pump, people of course infer profiteering.

I think most people would consider it reasonable to believe that retailers are faster to put their prices up than they are to bring them down.