/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6535241
Posting at 2am on this board and expecting an immediate answer is a pipe dream.

Have you used google scholar to it's fullest extent? Web of Science? Scifinder?

>>6534386
We are in one now - >>6534760 has it right

>>6534563
What is this masterful creature.

>>6534482
Thank you, based anon. This is going in my report as I revise it. We needed some figures to show carbon footprint for hybrids and EVs for our proposed new fuel economy label.

>inb4 what is a library

>>6534430
NG should get a nod over coal, because combined-cycle generation (rankine plus brayton) allow for a better recovery of chemical energy, and NG still has a lower CO2 footprint in terms of generation.

Coal - in general - shouldn't ever be used with the word "clean" until humans are completely out of the picture when mining it. So many injuries, deaths, chronic health problems, etc - get ignored or are just not common knowledge when people are talking about the benefits of burning coal for energy.

We are in one, but instead of ice caps expanding as previous cycles have shown should be happening now, they are dissapearing. Wrong way :(

>>6534183
I haven't read deeply into it, but I would like to. Where did you find literature about their process (other than me finding the patent(s))?

>>6534006
The y axis is relatively unimportant if you've already integrated the area under each peak. It doesn't necessarily correlate to concentration - it's a relative technique.

>>6533996
>>6534001
If you are the same person - did you come from >>>/x/ ?

>>6533915
I understand that - I know that few of these fermentation processes are able to take separated cellulose directly to a final product. I was simply answering your original question as to where I came up with my cost figure - all from a "forward thinking" seat. I think butanol is an awesome technology, but yes - at least 10 years away from gaining any traction. We're on the same page :)

>>6533858
I think you're confused about what gasses are responsible for heat-trapping in the atmosphere. Water is pretty low on that list. I don't know if fuel cells will make it rain more.

>>6533891
Not sure if you missed my link to that article while you were typing this, but that company - Optinol - does accomplish cost parity with ethanol with their custom microorgaism fermentation method. Also - my energy content per gallon is based on the higher heating values of the chemicals - not having any bearing on what they were produced from. I'm unsure what you were getting at with sugar per unit energy - but I would like you to elaborate if you can.

As for fermentation - again - please remember that a lot of these advanced technologies are making use of cellulosic materials as feedstocks, and not refined sugars from starch-based crops like corn and potatoes. That drastically changes the production costs. I can go into the details behind those things if you want, but that could be a separate thread by itself.

>>6533811
>>6533832
>>6533867

I do agree that there may be some theoretical cap on the amount of energy we can squeeze into batteries, but I don't believe that we've hit any sort of "cap" in terms of cost compared to ICEs. The most apparent argument here is that we've got no producer that has really established any economy of scale for electric vehicle production and thus, battery production. Tesla is trying to do that with their proposed "Gigafactory" - but advanced fuel and engine technologies now account for almost 10% of the LDV fleet in the U.S. and that hasn't showed any signs of slowing. These costs will come down.

As for range, light-weighting of vehicles is a major research area that promises to compensate for the massive batteries that are required for current EVs. There has been extensive research into composite materials, and recent breakthroughs into lower-cost carbon fibers and other structural materials that are much less dense, but just as strong (or stronger) than many of the steels that are currently used.

Remember - and I've said it before in this thread - this problem isn't one that we will ever find a magic bullet for. No miracle battery or engine or fuel. It will forever be an interdisciplinary endeavor to combine the best-in-class technologies across all fields and work together to bring those to consumers in a manner that allows them to be cost competitive and begin capturing market share.

>>6533721
>>6533875
>>6533881
Here's a post about that company. Doris (author of this blog) covers a lot of things related to the biobased industry and is definitely someone worthy of following across her writing platforms and social media if you're interested.

http://greenchemicalsblog.com/2013/08/22/new-bio-butanol-player-optinol/comment-page-1/

>>6533875
To continue - my last comment was too long. Once those investors find these technologies - they understand that they will hopefully recoup their costs because it *is* feasible that these technologies will be adopted - because they not only provide numerous environmental benefits, but they MUST be cost competitive to stand any chance of penetrating the market.

>>6533710
I try to not be retarded. I'm glad it works sometimes. I also wish more people on this board would have active conversations, even heated debate, without belaying to character attacks or "hey faggot, you're a stupid faggot" talk. That shit can stay on /b/

>>6533721
I did a lot of digging for that, and found that one of the most recent developments was from a company called Optinol that has developed a process to produce n-butanol from cellulosic feedstocks (NOT FOOD, from those of you thinking all biofuels are from corn or vegetable oil - please stop that). They've said that their costs of production are now low enough to deliver their product at an identical price to ethanol. My cost figures for that were based on the current price for ethanol at the time I wrote my report - $3.04 per gallon - with an energy content for n-butanol of 38.2 kWh/gal. The key here (the large portion of my report, really) was that the average consumer doesn't understand the differences in energy density in fuels and balks at the fact that ethanol is so hyped to be better, and cheaper (it is now, but that's artificial and that sucks) but gets them "worse mileage". We posited that we could try and make a shift to representing all fuels by their energy content and thus - I did my best to come up with accurate costs per kWh for a variety of fuels. So overall - per gallon - it's the same price, or slightly more expensive than ethanol. But per unit of energy - it's a strong contender.

This means that the opportunity is there, but obviously - not any large commercial capacity...yet.

I think the assumption you have about advanced and more recently patented technologies costing more is a fading notion in this industry. Markets are not amenable to adopt technologies that don't have some milestone where they are cost competitive - they just won't make it. So the research costs are often considered sunk - paid for by investors or grants.

>>6533397
Sadly yes, but some will get bored and leave

>>6533371
That's a bubbler - except for the fritted bottom, like >>6532107 said. At least, that's what we call them in lab. Can't reallt see whats in the bottom of OPs image, since it's cut off.

>>6533291
This is a math formula. OP - do you need a chemical formula?

Need to be more specific. If chemical - you need:

137Cs --> 137Ba + ß-

>>6533222
There's no reason that multiple energy technologies can't mutually exist. The fact that someone has put time, effort, and money into designing these doesn't mean that they're trying to destroy rooftop solar. They're looking for other markets.

>>6533228
The article says the units have the capability to melt and drain snowfall. Did you read it, or are you one of those quick "this is shit so I have to say so" commenters?

>>6532904
>I don't know where people get these ideas.
I think the people responsible for that project were embellishing quite a bit to stir up media attention for their technology. I personally think this is a poor way to bring your technology into the popular science area.

>>6532638
I did not indicate that it reduced the sum total of carbon that we *have* put into the atmosphere, but it has helped reduce the rate that we are putting it there.

>>6532667
This guy has it right. It's not a solution, but it's a step on the way.

>>6532612
I wouldn't put him under the crosshairs just yet. The recent advent of plentiful natural gas has made the argument for researching alternatives harder to push forward, but that is only a problem when this newly found natural gas isn't recognized as a stop-gap. It is responsible for a lot of the reductions in our carbon footprint, but is not a long term solution. Being able to defend your arguments for or against any of these technologies is important and the issues he brought up are valid.