News:

There's a sucker born every minute... and you are right on time.

Main Menu

You've gone too far, eh?

Started by Hoser McRhizzy, April 26, 2011, 10:16:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
User actions

The Good Reverend Roger

#75
April 28, 2011, 08:20:34 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...

isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.

My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a  petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.

Funny thing:  Most of our alcohol production goes into fast food & prepackaged junk food (it's not methanol, obviously).
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

#76
April 28, 2011, 08:20:59 PM
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Thurnez Isa

#77
April 28, 2011, 08:21:40 PM
YOU FORGOT PREPACKAGED BANANAS
Through me the way to the city of woe, Through me the way to everlasting pain, Through me the way among the lost.
Justice moved my maker on high.
Divine power made me, Wisdom supreme, and Primal love.
Before me nothing was but things eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, you who enter here.
Dante

ch3mist

#78
April 28, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...

isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.

My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a  petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.


also hoser sorry about the hijack...

The goal (as stated here) isn't transforming combustion gases into methanol, but into hydrocarbons such as methane. Of course, an efficient means of converting CO2 into CH3OH would also be damn useful.
<\       />
>_ \   / _<
</\^^^/\>
{<0\./0>}
\ ) ( /
~(o:o)~
{!^!}
\_/

The Good Reverend Roger

#79
April 28, 2011, 08:29:28 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...

isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.

My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a  petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.


also hoser sorry about the hijack...

The goal (as stated here) isn't transforming combustion gases into methanol, but into hydrocarbons such as methane. Of course, an efficient means of converting CO2 into CH3OH would also be damn useful.

Well, you're full of easy answers, so let's get cracking, shall we?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Freeky

#80
April 28, 2011, 08:33:24 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...

isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.

My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a  petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.


also hoser sorry about the hijack...

The goal (as stated here) isn't transforming combustion gases into methanol, but into hydrocarbons such as methane. Of course, an efficient means of converting CO2 into CH3OH would also be damn useful.

STOP TALKING SHIT ABOUT CHLOE KARDASHIAN

Hoser McRhizzy

#81
April 28, 2011, 08:38:57 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 28, 2011, 08:33:24 PM
STOP TALKING SHIT ABOUT CHLOE KARDASHIAN

:lol:

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
also hoser sorry about the hijack...

don't be!  It's interesting to see the new chemistry person figuring out that 'arguing on the internet' happens a little differently here.  Linking to studies (i'm assuming they're actually studies - I don't have the time or care enough to click and read) is a good sign.  I also like that there's a SRS! hydrocarbon-methane-sciency discussion going on while I bitch about individually wrapped bananas.

More importantly, yes: Sophia Tutu was a hottie.  :fap:
It feels unreal because it's trickling up.

The Good Reverend Roger

#82
April 28, 2011, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: Hoser McRhizzy on April 28, 2011, 08:38:57 PM
don't be!  It's interesting to see the new chemistry person figuring out that 'arguing on the internet' happens a little differently here.  Linking to studies (i'm assuming they're actually studies - I don't have the time or care enough to click and read) is a good sign. 

Unfortunately, he is also utterly lacking in social skills.  For example, he believes that being passed over in one thread is a good reason to trash someone else's thread, "because I can".

He is my new chew toy.   :)
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

ch3mist

#83
April 28, 2011, 08:42:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 08:29:28 PM
Well, you're full of easy answers, so let's get cracking, shall we?


As someone if your field should well know, cracking is the opposite process of what is being discussed.


:)
Give me a job, and I run with it.
<\       />
>_ \   / _<
</\^^^/\>
{<0\./0>}
\ ) ( /
~(o:o)~
{!^!}
\_/

The Good Reverend Roger

#84
April 28, 2011, 08:43:46 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 08:42:25 PM

As someone if your field should well know, cracking is the opposite process of what is being discussed.


:)
Give me a job, and I run with it.

Bullshit, we're now talking about Chloe Kardashian, and I'd crack that shit like the skin of a Hawaiian Airlines 737.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

ch3mist

#85
April 28, 2011, 08:46:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 08:43:46 PM
Bullshit, we're now talking about Chloe Kardashian, and I'd crack that shit like the skin of a Hawaiian Airlines 737.

Nice.  :lulz:
<\       />
>_ \   / _<
</\^^^/\>
{<0\./0>}
\ ) ( /
~(o:o)~
{!^!}
\_/

Freeky

#86
April 28, 2011, 08:48:02 PM
OMG DID yU HEAR THAT KHLOE'S MOM CALLED HER FAT?!  I MEAN, THAT BITCH Can'T TAKE A HINT! SHE NEEDS TO LOSE SOME WEIGHT!

LMNO

#87
April 28, 2011, 08:49:36 PM
Chloe's the one that looks like Bigfoot, right?

The Good Reverend Roger

#88
April 28, 2011, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 28, 2011, 08:49:36 PM
Chloe's the one that looks like Bigfoot, right?

I WOULD PUT MY PETER IN IT.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Freeky

#89
April 28, 2011, 08:50:46 PM


OMG THEY'RE TWINS!!!! HOW CUUUUTE!!!! <3
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
User actions