Skip navigation
32comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Jeff Harti

May 5, 2015
09:44

Fellow


1 |
Share via:
Hi Dimoir, Thank you for submitting your proposal. We look forward to reviewing your proposal once it has been completed. Regards, Jeff Harti

Dimoir Quaw

May 6, 2015
05:19

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Jeff, Thanks for your message. I'm looking forward to seeing where this proposal will take the project. Regards, Dimoir

Stringer Bell

May 15, 2015
03:52

Member


3 |
Share via:
Dimoir, This is a very interesting proposal. Is it ok if I can share this link with my colleagues at GE? Kindest Regards Quincy

Quincy Quayson

May 15, 2015
03:31

Member


4 |
Share via:
Dimoir, This is a very interesting proposal. Is it ok if I can share this link with my colleagues at GE? Kindest Regards Quincy Quayson

Dimoir Quaw

May 16, 2015
04:54

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Quincy Thank you for your interest! I would welcome the feedback of GE Energy and GE Aviation in regards to the possible increase in gas turbine demand. I would also welcome the feedback of GE / Alstrom in regards to the possible increase in heat recover steam generator (HRSG) demand. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/phaseId/1306763/planId/1316801 Please share the link above with your colleagues. Warm Regards, Dimoir

Rod Abz

May 16, 2015
05:32

Member


6 |
Share via:
Hello Dimoir It has been a long while since I have been this enthused over a well thought out proposal that offers a potentially radical solution to everyday problems. It ticks many boxes from environmentally friendly, offers sustainable capability to potential socio-political reform and long term economic benefits across a wide range of stakeholders. I will pass this enlightening piece onto colleagues and friends alike if you do not mind. Kind Regards Rodney

Dimoir Quaw

May 16, 2015
06:49

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Rodney, Thank you for your interest and kind comments. As you pointed out, the project aims to be as inclusive to as many stakeholders as possible! Please feel free to share the link below with your colleagues and friends. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/phaseId/1306763/planId/1316801 Best Regards, Dimoir

Simonn. Kuenyefu

May 16, 2015
08:31

Member


8 |
Share via:
Hi , I will get everyone to get the link. It all sounds good so far. You always have our support.

Dimoir Quaw

May 16, 2015
09:50

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Mr Kuenyefu, Thank you for your support and comment! I look forward to receiving the support and comments of your associates upon them following the link below: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/phaseId/1306763/planId/1316801 Kind Regards, Dimoir

Michael Hayes

May 19, 2015
06:51

Member


10 |
Share via:
Hello Dimoir, You have listed three primary non-ff energy conversion methods which your system may benefit from. Have you considered what, if any, improvements your system can bring to 'Hydrothermal conversion (HTC) of biomass to fuels and energetic materials'. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367593113000938 I ask this as the production of biomass/biofuel (i.e. bio-energy with carbon capture and sequestration-BECCS) is critical to reaching a net negative global emissions scenario (i.e. RCP 2.6). I'm currently reviewing technology which can be incorporated into an advanced BECCS proposal. Any feedback you can offer concerning your TEEU, as it may fit into a BECCS senario would be welcomed. Specifically, what is the energy/cost comparison between HTC and TEEU? Best regards, Michael

Dimoir Quaw

May 19, 2015
07:35

Member


11 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Michael, Thank you for your interest. I have just completed the qualitative component of the proposal's first draft (0021hrs GMT) and am looking forward to inputting the quantities (cost and GHG emissions mass) shortly (with references. I like to double-check my figures!). I will respond with figures soon, Thanks again, Kind Regards, Dimoir

Paul Klinkman

May 19, 2015
09:15

Member


12 |
Share via:
Here's what your project needs to show: if quick and dirty solar heat is one factor of ten less electricity-efficient than TEEU, but if quick and dirty solar heat is two factors of ten less expensive to produce than TEEU-quality solar or nuclear heat, where is TEEU's profit?

Dimoir Quaw

May 20, 2015
04:55

Member


13 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Paul, Thanks for your comment. You and Michael's (above) feedback are informing my two unfinished responses in the proposal. I'm double-checking and tabulating my figures to upload soon. It is clear that TEEU will have a non-trivial cost. It would have to be manufactured in the cost range of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and gas turbine, otherwise it will be unattractive. *If attractive and the investment is made, the land required (often in politically unstable regions like the Sahara for example) can be reduced and its smaller area can be better protected (security-wise). *Also, less reflectors means less water (scarce) to clean them of the desert's dust (water availability is a big issue in Saharan Africa and an added expense even in Arizona one would imagine!) The TEEU is the response for those in the fossil-fuel industry who shun solar power on the basis of its lower energy density (from the sun) than fossil fuels. Reflected solar energy density is enhanced at the receiver but is not competitive with TEEU temperatures if the reflectors are parabolic troughs. If the reflectors are parabolic dishes, their temperatures are higher than TEEU's; however each dish must then have a power-producing unit at its focus. Such systems exist at ~ 32% thermal to electrical energy conversion efficiency at ~25kW power rating. *One must note that although dish receiver temperatures can be higher than the TEEU; combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power-plants (~58% thermal efficiency) must be rated at ~30MW or above. In other words, the integrated heating power must be over a thousand times more powerful than a dish's for CCGT efficiencies to be realised! Each dish is a unit, whereas the trough is modular and can be extended in rows (~18% efficiency). The TEEU allows the cheaper troughs to provide lower receiver temperatures and then enhance the temperature of the integrated heat flux received by the trough array where it is most needed (at the turbine). A second cost restriction must therefore be imposed: The TEEU + parabolic trough array (@ 47% to 58% efficiency) cost must be comparable to a similarly sized field of parabolic dishes (@ 32% efficiency). I hope this helps Paul (until I upload the table...) Cheers, Dimoir

Dimoir Quaw

May 20, 2015
10:39

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello again Michael, I have considered how my system can contribute to HTC. Thank you for the link. The TEEU promises to be able to provide the conditions required for HTC. From what I read, one reaction is slightly exothermic (energy production) and another quite endothermic (energy storage). Additionally, the heating of carbonaceous material (biomass) does yield finite amounts of carbon dioxide so although heat energy may be stored chemically; the storage process would still release GHGs. If you would prefer we can discuss the HTC storage and possible capture method by email in a couple of days to go into some of the possibilities the TEEU has to offer with re-application. Kind Regards, Dimoir

Michael Hayes

May 23, 2015
04:47

Member


15 |
Share via:
Dimoir, I would not worry too much about the CO2 production levels of HTC as most biomass cultivation concepts using HTC are large consumers of CO2 (and H2). The CO2 and H2 produced through HTC are simply returned to the biomass production loop with excess CO2 being geo-sequestered, uv disassociated and/or converted to other downstream commodities such as cement etc. http://www.cchange.net/tag/blue-planet/ The primary output value of HTC is the H2 and CO2 (along with the biochar) which is used within the oxyhydrogen reaction within micro algae method of cultivation. H2/CO2 dependent chemosynthetic biomass cultivation means: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19873340 Please feel free to contact me at voglerlake@gmail.com Kind regards, Michael

Dimoir Quaw

May 23, 2015
10:47

Member


16 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Michael, Thanks for your reply and email address. Mine is info@quaws.name I do recall reading in one or two sources a year or two ago of a described process which seems identical to the geo-sequestration you mentioned... but it's good to hear it from you because I'm now more convinced by it. I am a supporter of biomass over fossil fuel. I always associated the dry biomass as an alternative to coal but the wet biomass has some very interesting properties that allows TEEU to come into play. Hydrogen as a by-product is good - especially if used in a fuel-cell (less polluting) rather than burning in air (to produce water and some nitrogenous compounds - also GHGs). However released methane and other GHGs can contribute (in lower concentrations) to the greenhouse effect more substantially than carbon dioxide. In general, chemical reactors will produce a spectrum of compounds but if as you mention, the more potent GHGs (than carbon dioxide) can be captured or filtered then HTC certainly merits investigation. Please allow me to follow the links you have kindly sent me so that we can continue this discussion by email. Thanks again Michael Best Regards, Dimoir

Duncan Hedges

May 25, 2015
04:36

Member


17 |
Share via:
Hello Dimoir A very interesting proposal that seems to be generating a healthy debate. I will continue to watch this with the hope that it progresses. Kind Regards Duncan

Dimoir Quaw

May 25, 2015
05:41

Member


18 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Duncan, Thank you for your support! It will be interesting to see the impact the research will make... Best Regards, Dimoir

Wyatt Sanders

May 28, 2015
04:49

Member


19 |
Share via:
Hi Dimoir, I think you might want to recheck this statement: "By comparison, non-fossil fuel thermal power plants such as nuclear, geothermal and solar-thermal parabolic trough power plants have efficiencies of 38%, 35% & 20% respectively" I found from two sources that Solar Thermal plants have efficiencies closer to 30~60%, which would be nearly twice what you quoted, and also at the top of that particular list. It also depends on the design of the particular plant, but efficiencies can be as high as 60% for closed trough. http://wims.unice.fr/xiao/solar/efficiency.html "Of all of these technologies the solar dish/Stirling engine has the highest energy efficiency. A single solar dish-Stirling engine installed at Sandia National Laboratories National Solar Thermal Test Facility (NSTTF) produces as much as 25 kW of electricity, with a conversion efficiency of 31.25%.[62]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

Dimoir Quaw

May 28, 2015
06:14

Member


20 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Insitenrg, Thanks for your interest and keen insight. You made a good point regarding the Sun versus terrestrial fusion power so I'm sitting up to pay attention! There are several efficiencies quoted in general but my interest is in "thermal efficiency" rather than "receiver efficiency" or "turbine efficiency" for example. The thermal efficiency is defined by the Oxford [1] and Collins [2] online dictionaries respectively as: "The efficiency of a heat engine measured by the ratio of the work done by it to the heat supplied to it." [1] "the ratio of the work done by a heat engine to the energy supplied to it " [2] It should be noted that the shaft work done (rotation of a turbine's axle) is efficiently [3] converted into electrical energy (98% to 99%). So the definition of "thermal efficiency" is closely related to "overall thermal energy to electrical energy conversion" efficiency. As mentioned in the proposal "solar thermal parabolic trough" power-plants commonly operate with [3,4] thermal efficiencies comparable to 20%. See page 11 of the pdf from the following website[4]. "Collector thermal efficiency" as described (shown on page 4 and page 6 of the following website[5]) is different from the "overall thermal energy to electrical energy conversion" efficiency of the solar parabolic trough power plant. In other words, the collector is just one component of the trough. Individually, its efficiency is higher than the overall system. I'm in complete agreement with you on the dish Stirling. I've even referred to them in my proposal because I'd like to use a Stirling engine for other applications. However, my claim throughout the proposal is for "solar-thermal parabolic trough" only... so far... Thanks for your interest again and feel free to support if you've not already voted for another proposal in the "energy supply" category! Warm Regards, Dimoir [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/thermal-efficiency [2] http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/thermal-efficiency [3] http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm [4] http://www.eurelectric.org/Download/Download.aspx?DocumentID=13549 [5] http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gregoris_Panayiotou/publication/267785048_EVALUATION_OF_A_PARABOLIC_TROUGH_COLLECTOR_PERFORMANCE/links/53f4a0d60cf2fceacc6e93bd.pdf

Dustin Carey

May 31, 2015
01:03

Fellow


21 |
Share via:
Hi Dimoir, I wanted to thank you for an exceptionally well articulated and thought-out proposal. The question of TEEU's costs is interesting, and I am curious as to your thoughts on whether its costs might be comparable to heat recovery steam generation. While you project the costs to be nontrivial, I can only imagine they would remain considerably lower than the construction of additional electrical generating plants. As such, if this technology is employed to increase generating station output utilizing a comparable quantity of nuclear fuel/solar radiation/geothermal heat, it may prove an attractive selling point to prospective utilities. I was also rather fond of your note of the potential scalability of TEEU to nuclear fusion, should the technology one day emerge. I certainly hope to see the deployment of this technology beyond natural gas utilization in the future! Best regards, Dustin Carey Catalyst

John Smith

May 31, 2015
08:16

Member


22 |
Share via:
Dimoir, How can the final targets energy content be higher than that of the starting heat source? HAS ANYONE CHECKED THE THERMODYNAMICS OF THIS IDEA?! IT CANNOT PHYSICALLY WORK. Your TEEU merely converts energy from one form to another: 1. Energy source --> Heat radiation 2. Heat radiation --> Heat Beam 3. Heat Beam --> Heating "dust" in a vacuum 4. Hot "dust" --> High Velocity "dust" 5. Fast "dust" --> Colliding with target 6. Collisions --> Hot Target At EACH STEP, you lose energy to ENTROPY. THAT IS BASIC THERMODYNAMICS. How can the final target have more energy than the starting energy source? Why would we want a hot target at the end of this process anyways?? We merely took usable energy source, threw some away and all we are left with is a hot target! Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan Chemical Engineer

Dimoir Quaw

Jun 1, 2015
01:37

Member


23 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Dustin, Thank you for your kind comments. They are very much appreciated. It is true that the TEEU costs are non-trivial but are less expensive than an additional power plant. For the proposal, I am looking at existing technologies to gauge a cost for the TEEU in its more commercial (but as yet undisclosed) form. This will probably be done in the final week as I am preparing to answer the question of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Nuclear fusion would provide an ideal replacement for nuclear fission but I do believe that solar-thermal must be heavily invested in because it has huge potential and is cleaner and safer than any terrestrial nuclear reactor plant. Thank you again Dustin! Please support by voting or spreading the word and maybe more of the right people (like you) will take an interest... Warm Regards, Dimoir

Dimoir Quaw

Jun 1, 2015
09:48

Member


24 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Matthew, As you mentioned you would do, it may have been better to have sent me an email rather than to have posted your comment. It requires a like response. Please see my abbreviated +++ responses +++ and follow the detailed reply below after the “quoted” message. --- “Dimoir, How can the final targets energy content be higher than that of the starting heat source? “ +++this was never claimed Matthew. As per our Skype conversation last Thursday; you are once again conflating enthalpy or total energy content with temperature. The two are different+++ HAS ANYONE CHECKED THE THERMODYNAMICS OF THIS IDEA?! IT CANNOT PHYSICALLY WORK. +++yes Matthew, I have as well as other academics who I can only invite to join this climatecolab+++ +++please click the link you’ve sent me. I’m not sure of its relevance+++ Your TEEU merely converts energy from one form to another: +++Most machines work in this way Matthew+++ 1. Energy source --> Heat radiation +++heat-source to isotropic thermal radiation+++ 2. Heat radiation --> Heat Beam +++isotropic thermal radiation to collimated thermal radiation beam+++ 3. Heat Beam --> Heating "dust" in a vacuum +++collimated thermal radiation beam to partially irradiate the surfaces of dust particles that are suspended in an evacuated medium+++ 4. Hot "dust" --> High Velocity "dust" +++vaporised matter ejected from dust particle to produce a propellant jet and accelerating dust particle remnant payload+++ 5. Fast "dust" --> Colliding with target +++accelerated dust particle remnant rapidly decelerating within target+++ 6. Collisions --> Hot Target +++target enthalpy or energy content increases+++ At EACH STEP, you lose energy to ENTROPY. +++energy will be lost as heat. Entropy is dimensionally equivalent to the ratio of heat with temperature. Entropy will either remain at zero or increase when considering the entire system+++ THAT IS BASIC THERMODYNAMICS. +++I agree; but a more basic inaccuracy is to conflate quantities such as heat, temperature and entropy as you have repeated...+++ How can the final target have more energy than the starting energy source? +++This is not claimed Matthew. The heat source has more atoms with moderate amounts of energy per atom. The target has less atoms with high amounts of energy per atom. The heat-source’s enthalpy or integrated energy content is greater than the target’s enthalpy or integrated energy content. In other words; the heat source has a moderate temperature but (obviously) more total energy than the target. The target has a high temperature but (obviously) less total energy than the heat-source that is driving the process. Why would we want a hot target at the end of this process anyways?? +++For this you will have to refer to the work of Nicolas-léonard-sadi Carnot. For over a century, engineers have known that by increasing the temperature difference between heat-source and heat-sink, thermal efficiency may be increased+++ We merely took usable energy source, threw some away and all we are left with is a hot target! +++We actually took barely usable energy in the form of a lower-grade of heat at a heat-source, inevitably lost some and now what we have is a higher-grade of heat from the target which allows us to derive more mechanical work and electricity from the same heat-source than if we did things as usual. Therefore nuclear and fossil fuel consumption and waste, as well as land utilisation and geothermal borehole depth are reduced. If this is still not clear to you Matthew, please read the full response below+++ Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan Chemical Engineer” ---- Hello Matthew, How are you? Thank you conversing with me on Skype last Thursday and for your interest in the TEEU mark I. I awaited the email reply you mentioned in our conversation and was checking my personal inbox until last Saturday morning (UK time), but it is good that you have chosen to reply in this public format because my reply should better inform any other readers with similar concerns. I have checked the thermodynamics of this idea. Had I any doubts about the concept, it would not have been published. In our conversation on Thursday, it seemed that you harbored some misconceptions about “energy” and “temperature”. Please allow me clarify this for readers falling into the same trap by responding to your list. Please refer to the diagram [a] or what is currently the second image of the proposal. Firstly, the Heat source (2) with an approximate temperature of 300 degrees Celsius transfers heat to a coolant (3) which predominantly radiates heat away by passing through a spherical radiator. This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hu < 100%”. The cooled coolant (10) is returned back to the heat source (2) for further temperature regulation. Secondly, a collimator (4) causes the heat radiated in all directions to travel as a beam of thermal radiation (5) in one direction. This process transfers energy from one configuration to another with an efficiency of “hv < 100%”. Thirdly, the thermal radiation beam (5) enters a controlled pressure environment or receiver (6) and heats one side of the dust particles. The dust particles release heated propellant gas from the heated or irradiated surface only (7). This makes the un-heated part of the dust particle recoil (8) or move in the opposite direction to the expanding propellant gas. The dust particles behave like tiny rockets (akin to a nub of butter racing around in a hot frying pan). This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hw < 100%”. Fourthly, the dust remnants (8) (or unheated parts of the dust particles that have not released gases) accelerate like a rocket [b] for as long as the heat-beam (5) heats part of the dust as mentioned in the above paragraph {The correct choice of chemical compound*, grain dimension, emissivity, thermal conductivity, specific dissociation enthalpy, propellant atomic masses, remnant atomic masses are duly selected to optimise the thrust efficiency, specific impulse and final “payload” dust particle remnant mass and velocity}. This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hx < 100%”. Fifthly, the dust is accelerated (in the laboratory frame of reference) relative to the observer (or power plant operator) to speeds that are comparable to the molecular speed of the post-combustion carbon dioxide and water molecules typically observed in the combustion chamber (combustor) of a gas turbine. The significance of this will become apparent in the following paragraphs. This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hy < 100%”. Sixthly, the fast dust remnants collide with a target (9)*. Each remnant was travelling at a high speed, and then was rapidly stopped by the target. The atoms of the dust remnant were travelling together in the same direction towards the target and then scattered upon impact with the target. The following occurs; scattering at high speeds in random directions and acceleration of atoms within the target surface to high speeds. The surface target atoms collide with other target atoms and vibrate at high rates in random directions. The increased movement in random directions corresponds to an increase in temperature of the target and the vaporised dust remnant. This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hz < 100%”. Overview Recall that the dust remnant was travelling at similar speeds to molecules in a gas turbine combustion chamber? To summarise; the TEEU is designed to allow the original heat source (2) operating at 300 degrees Celsius to cause a temperature increase in the target to over 1500 degrees Celsius. A heat engine (a turbine for example) operating between the original heat source (2) at 300 degrees Celsius and the environment at 20 degrees Celsius (T0) will work less efficiently than the same heat engine operating between the target (9) at 1500 degrees Celsius and the environment at 20 degrees Celsius. Hence the Thermal Efficiency of the system has been Enhanced by the Unit (TEEU). The energy efficiency of a process is the ratio of the amount of energy converted into a desired form or forms from the available energy in its previous form or forms. In regards to “each step”, the increase in system “entropy” and the “basic laws of thermodynamics”: Each step followed in the TEEU sequence of operations will result in finite energy losses so that a substantial fraction (but not the entire amount) of the initial energy available from the heat source (2) can be extracted (11) from the target (9). However, thermodynamics also states that the Carnot (maximum theoretical) efficiency "h" or the Greek symbol "Eta" of a heat engine (12) can be calculated as follows: hcarnot target to environment = 1 – (T0/T9) > hcarnot heat-source to environment = 1 – (T0/T2) The turbine (12) and electrical generator (13) have efficiencies of hturbine and hgenerator respectively. So when considering the overall power plant thermal efficiency: The Carnot efficiency of a TEEU-fitted plant exceeds the Carnot efficiency of the same existing plant hu x hv x hw x hx x hy x hz x hcarnot target to environment > hcarnot heat-source to environment The practical efficiency of a TEEU-fitted plant exceeds the practical efficiency of the same existing plant hu x hv x hw x hx x hy x hz x target fed hturbine x hgenerator > heat source fed hturbine x hgenerator The Carnot efficiency of a TEEU-fitted plant will exceed those of a real TEEU-fitted plant as one would expect... hu x hv x hw x hx x hy x hz x hcarnot target to environment > heat target fed hturbine x hgenerator In short; a hotter power plant, can transform a larger fraction of its heat into electricity than the same cooler power plant can. If the effect of the overall efficiency increase due to temperature elevation is greater than the effect of efficiency decrease due to energy conversion, then the concept can physically work in practice. *TEEU mark I was published but has been greatly advanced upon in TEEU Mark II and TEEU mark III as filed patents. These are unpublished as yet and cannot be discussed before 2016 without a non-disclosure agreement with an interested and committed party. TEEU mark I is published with certain proprietary information withheld. The interested reader, physicists and aerospace engineers (for example) familiar with the basic principles of rocketry will note that the TEEU mark I is feasible as long as the vaporised dust propellant exhaust velocity is sufficiently high enough to facilitate the dust remnant's recoil to high speeds. The accelerated dust remnant transforms its accumulated kinetic energy into it's (and the target’s) internal energy [c] in a similar fashion to a meteor entering the earth’s atmosphere or a meteorite impacting upon the earth’s surface or even a space-vehicle re-entering the earth's atmosphere. Please feel free to review these processes and return with more comments. Thanks, Kind Regards, Dimoir Dr M’dimoir Quaw (Mphys., PhD.) Physicist, Electrical Engineer and Propulsion Engineer [a] http://imageprocessor.websimages.com/width/567/crop/0,0,567x564/www.quaws.name/IPG%20021%20Overview%20sites.jpg [b] http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktpow.html [c] http://www.impact-structures.com/understanding-the-impact-cratering-process-a-simple-approach/

Michael Hayes

Jun 16, 2015
09:01

Member


25 |
Share via:
Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan is correct on all counts. Reflecting heat does not enhance heat....in any way shape or form.

Dimoir Quaw

Jun 17, 2015
10:57

Member


26 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Michael, Please see my Brief reply and Full reply below that. Thank you Brief reply: Please see my ++responses below++ "Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan is correct on all counts (++ He has conflated heat with temperature. He cannot therefore be correct on all counts). Reflecting heat does not enhance heat....in any way shape or form (++ if that were true, solar-thermal rockets would not have been considered [1] and solar-thermal power plants would not use parabolic reflectors [2] to concentrate and exploit the warm sunlight in which we bathe, into an intense focused beam. Heat radiated from the sun is not exclusively infra-red or visible, it is merely the thermal energy released by the sun due to its temperature... and it is routinely focused Michael ++). Full reply: Hello Michael, How are you? I've not heard from you since our emails. I believe the last one was on 27th May. Please check your inbox; I've been awaiting your response regarding collaborative bio-fuel research as alluded to in your earlier comments. In regards to your previous comment (25) on the following page https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/planId/1316801/tab/COMMENTS. Please read carefully the preceding comment (24) "enthalpiq Jun. 01, 2015". You seem to share Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan's pitfall in conflating "heat" with "temperature". "Heat" is a form of energy whereas "temperature" is related to the energy per atom within a certain system. This nuance allows temperature to be increased (as in a heat-pump) although unavoidably losing heat in the process. An increase in temperature will increase a heat-engine's efficiency... but of course; this is explained above and in my description tab. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/phaseId/1306764/planId/1316801 Allow me to give you a further example here in the comments tab... At room temperature; hydrogen or helium molecules or atoms travel at very high speeds. Therefore the temperature of a power plant would allow said particles to travel at even greater speeds. According to rocket science, the payload of a rocket propelled by propellant (in this case hydrogen or helium gas) may travel at comparable speeds by recoil. Payload speed change ~ propellant exhaust velocity. The reflectors merely direct heat otherwise wasted from a power plant's heat source towards tiny grains of dust or ice to allow them to accelerate by releasing hydrogen or helium gas. The grain remnants eventually accelerate to comparable speeds as the hydrogen or helium atoms or molecules; however, the grains are of higher molecular or atomic mass. Upon impact, the kinetic energy of each grain remnant atom or molecule exceeds that of any single typical propellant atom or molecule. This is because a number of propellant (hydrogen or helium) molecules or atoms have contributed to the acceleration of EACH heavier grain remnant atom or molecule. "The Saturn V payload traveled at comparable speeds to the hydrogen that propelled it; yet said payload was made of heavier atoms than hydrogen!" Upon impact, the dust remnant payload (macroscopic particle) converts its ACQUIRED kinetic energy into internal energy. In this way; the post-collision heavier remnant atoms and molecules (although driven by, and travelling at comparable speeds to the hydrogen or helium propellant molecules or atoms) have a higher kinetic energy per atom (and thus... temperature) than the propellant atoms or molecules (and the original power plant heat-source that heated the dust grain to release the propellant to begin with). Of course there will be loses, but the TEEU mark II has less energy transfer stages than TEEU mark I and any loses are offset by the temperature increased efficiency enhancement. I) TEEU in general will allow the low power density and modest-temperature heat source (see the sun; our only functional nuclear reactor's fusion power density) to be more efficiently converted into electricity (See Carnot's engine). This will reduce the required nuclear reaction rate of any distant-future thermonuclear fusion reactor AND reduce the production of radioactive materials. However short-lived their isotopes in comparison with nuclear fission: Elevated background radioactivity is BAD. II) TEEU in general will allow heat, otherwise wasted in power-plants to be stored by upgrading temperatures to synthesis bio-fuels. That is assuming that the stockpiling of methane and hydrogen is safe as methane is a more POWERFUL GREENHOUSE GAS than carbon dioxide, and hydrogen is HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE: The Hindenburg immediately springs to mind. In my humble opinion; we must use the FREE already available fusion energy from the sun by building more solar-thermal plants and sequester the carbon dioxide in the air by planting more trees. The TEEU may reduce the area utilised by solar-thermal power plants and the water required to operate them. The water surplus could be used to nourish trees. Regards, Dimoir Dr M'dimoir Quaw (MPhys., PhD.) [1] http://www.psicorp.com/pdf/library/sr-1228.pdf [2] http://www.quaws.name/product-characteristics

John Smith

Jun 18, 2015
12:49

Member


27 |
Share via:
Dimoir, Your device merely changes energy from one form to another. You can "concentrate" energy in less mass with a higher temperature. But at each step you lose energy to entropy - so this provides has no real advantage. In fact it will lose Energy. That is basic thermodynamics. Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J Moynihan

Dimoir Quaw

Jun 18, 2015
07:11

Member


28 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Matthew, Please see abbreviated ++response++ below and the full ++response++ below that... Regards, Dimoir Dr M'dimoir Quaw (MPhys., PhD.) --- Dimoir, Your device merely changes energy from one form to another. ++from a less useful grade (of heat) to a more useful grade ++ You can "concentrate" energy in less mass with a higher temperature.++I'm glad you agree++ But at each step you lose energy to entropy - so this provides has no real advantage.++ Do you mean energy is lost as heat? I must ask you again to be specific Matthew. Heat loss is the case for all power-plants, yet power-plants' advantages are real and obvious!++ In fact it will lose Energy.++show me the engine that doesn't. There is no peaceful fusion source that does work to provide electricity; they all simply "lose energy"++ That is basic thermodynamics.++a slightly more advanced law of thermodynamics reveals that engines transfer more energy as work from heat if the heat-source is at a higher temperature. Are you not familiar with Carnot's engine?++ Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J Moynihan --- Matthew, please find my full ++responses++ below to comment 27. --- Dimoir, Please limit the comments here to fusion related issues ++the pre-penultimate paragraph of comment 26 was fusion-related++. Your device merely changes energy from one form to another ++comment 24 has addressed this. Most devices change the form of energy. A turbine does, and has a compressor. I sense again you are mistaking the TEEU for an energy source. If it helps, try to think of it as a gas turbine's carbon-free injector. A compressor uses turbine kinetic energy to compress air to increase temperature and therefore thermal efficiency (I will return to efficiency shortly)++ You can "concentrate" energy in less mass with a higher temperature..++thank you; this is what I have been communicating to you++ ....but at each step you lose energy ++I have not denied this++ to entropy ++entropy is not dimensionally equivalent to energy Matthew. Perhaps "you lose energy to heat" would be more accurate.. Basic thermodynamics ++I agree. Making basic errors (again) as conflating energy with entropy will lead to the misunderstandings that are evident here. Now that I have (once again) stated that TEEU is a component within a power plant proposed to increase temperature and Carnot Efficiency, what seems to be the issue? If temperature increase causes efficiency increase, the newly available electrical energy output will offset the heat-energy loses. Are you aware that the compressor of a gas turbine loses kinetic energy as waste heat? As you would put it, it "merely changes energy from one form to another" yet, engineers still see fit to connect these devices onto turbines. They do so to increase thermal efficiency. Back to fusion, I am curious as to how you have predicted your figures for greenhouse gas emission reduction when the most well-funded of fusion projects does not foresee near-term sustainable and commercial break-even conditions. Do you honestly anticipate that by educating the public, such fusion will become a reality by 2020 as evidenced by your "impact" tab? That's in less than five years time! It seems very optimistic. Also, you've only predicted fusion in the United States. Why is that? Any fusion reactor constitutes what I have labelled in my proposal... https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/planId/1316801 ...as the heat source (2) and the TEEU, powered by the heat source (2) injects hot gas into the turbine (12) according to figure 2. According to figure 6 of the same proposal which has been simplified from figure 2, a heat source (a) feeds heated fluid to a TEEU (c) to be injected at a higher temperature into gas turbine (e). The TEEU is a gas-turbine injector that can be powered by a heat-source such as a nuclear fission or fusion reactor, a geothermal resource, a bio-fuel boiler or a solar-thermal receiver. The TEEU is not self-powered, rather it is proposed to enhance existing and future power plant efficiencies much like a gas-turbine compressor. It does not solely depend upon the hope of the emergence of technology which is as yet to be proven to profitably release energy for human consumption. However, should that day come, thermal efficiency enhancement will be required to reduce the production rate of radioactive materials. I hope this clarifies things. Regards, Dimoir Dr M'dimoir Quaw (MPhys., PhD.)++ Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J Moynihan

James Lau

May 9, 2016
05:58

Member


29 |
Share via:

Making fossil fuel power plant more efficient is still far less desirable than using renewable energy. Please look at my OTEC proposal which is actually using hot fusion power (the sun) with existing high concentration factor energy collector (global ocean). The only requirement is heat exchangers to circulate (Rankine cycle) working fluid through turbine/inductor generators. No GHG is much better than reduced GHG.

It is well known that steam turbines efficiency has been limited by the maximum steam temperature of 630 K. This maximum temperature limit is imposed by the corrosive effect of higher temperature steam. It is also known that using gas turbine as first stage at higher temperature can increase fossil fuel power plant efficiency to 60 %, as high as the claim in this proposal. There is reason to doubt the validity of this proposal concept.

How can all this almost one year old comments suddenly appear in this contest. Is this an insider scheme?


Dimoir Quaw

May 15, 2016
08:33

Member


30 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Hello James,

Thanks for your interest. I apologize for the delayed response, I have been working on another new proposal. I intend to view your proposal after the next deadline. I fear that you may have misunderstood my proposal in question. 

The TEEU and non-fossil fuel power plants heat sources (solar thermal parabolic trough, nuclear, geothermal) produce gas at thousands of Kelvin (whereas the heat source itself only operates at hundreds of Kelvin). As a result, solar thermal trough, geothermal and nuclear heat sources can drive combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) instead of combusted gasified fossil fuels driving CCGT

This makes nuclear, geothermal and solar thermal trough competitive with fossil fuel and allows fossil fueled power plants to be shut down. This proposal was transferred from the 2015 competition; that's why the comments are not recent.

I hope this helps

Kind regards,

 

Dimoir


Dorcas Melda

Jul 24, 2020
02:51

Member


31 |
Share via:

Psychology coursework writing services are not hard to come across for those in need of Psychology Research Paper Services and psychology assignment writing services. 


Mubashir Ahmed

Aug 11, 2020
04:47

Member


32 |
Share via:

One of the most well known new technology gadgets available right presently are the smaller than normal PCs. These little PCs are extremely incredible for individuals who would prefer not to drag around an enormous PC with monitor them constantly.