Liquid air, or hot air?

Forget electric cars, and hydrogen cars, apparently the future is liquid air powered cars. The media is toting liquid air as the "fuel of the future". Except that liquid air, like hydrogen, is not a fuel, but a means of storing energy. To liquify air, we need to refrigerate and compress it. That takes energy, so we are talking coal, oil, gas, or God forbid, nukes.

As an energy storage medium, it is probably better than chemical batteries, as it will have a longer life. But if we take into account losses in refrigeration and compression, and losses in a compressed air engine, we shall be lucky to get an overall efficiency of 40%.

It might be useful on a large scale to store grid energy for peak periods, and indeed a pilot plant is operational at Slough. But liquid air cars and bikes? Just a lot of hot air.

Well, there was a liquid air car driven around for all to see on the BBC news the other day, a conversion of an existing car by a private long time proponent of this system, so not just "hot air".

 

If a privateer can do this, it would be interesting to see what the likes of VW, Daimler-Benz, or GM could achieve with this method.

 

We'll be going nuclear anyway to produce enough of the main alternative of electricity, so giving us more choices.

or God forbid, nukes.

 

Why God forbid?

 

It's a viable mid term solution imo.

Why God forbid?

 

It's a viable mid term solution imo.

 

Chernoble. Fuch-you-shima. Forgotten already ?

Just to add, the the three mile island accident / incident / disaster (depending on how you look at it) was caused by pilot error and ended well

 

Chernoble was due to the design of the pump back up supply issues and fudging on the fly..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Edited October 7, 201213 yr by Old_Dave

Chernoble. Fuch-you-shima. Forgotten already ?

 

Nothing forgotten.

 

The nuclear major accidents were Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The outcomes of those were a very small number of deaths after Chernobyl and none after the other two. The deaths worldwide resulting from other generating methods are huge over just one ten year period: Hydroelectric over 800; Wind, over 300; Coal, beyond measurement worldwide but 68 per week average in China alone in that period.

 

Fukushima was not a nuclear accident, it was a Tsunami one after which the six reactors shut down automatically immediately and correctly. The radiation that followed resulted from overheated residual cooling water splitting and the hydrogen dispersing caesium 137 and iodine 131 into a small local area, with no risk of deaths, despite the hysteria.

 

These events do result in a power station mess that is difficult to clear up, but it's nothing compared to the vile mess that coal burning produces, CO2 and global warming, sulphur dioxide leading to acid rain wrecking forests and lakes, 4 million tons of ash per year into landfill from each typical station.

 

Nuclear is in fact clean, safe and cuddly, and I'd be very happy with a large nuclear power station on my doorstep, plus a long term store for spent materials.

Flecc,

You forgot to add the terrible blight upon the landscape of wind turbines.

Already, parts of Wales have been scarred. Also, there is no mention of the turbulence, but I for one can sometimes feel a sort of thrumming in high winds up to 10 miles down wind of the things. And this is just a small part of what is to come.

Nuclear power is the way forward. Remember it is still in its infancy and should improve as times move on. Many of the quoted accidents occured in old designs.

True Mike, I was confining myself to that ten year study period, but turbines are indeed a huge blight on our environment and over 300 deaths were recorded worldwide from construction and maintenance of wind turbines in that period.

 

All three nuclear high level accidents were with first generation stations, second and third generation designs are inherently very safe. Every new major technology results in deaths until we learn from them, nuclear was no different.

Three mile Island was a design error looking for an accident. There were 2 reactors, the control consoles for each reactor were made left and right handed about a centreline thru the control room. Increasing analogue meter values on the left side went clockwise for reactor 1, whereas increasing meters on the right side went counter-clockwise for reactor 2 - this gave a beautifully balanced symmetrical image of the control room when photos were taken through the centre line. However in use prior to the accident the controllers were presented with needles going clockwise on both sides of the console suites (some readings going up, other readings actually going down) unfortunately under the stress of the situation they forgot about the left hand / right hand symmetry of their consoles - thinking everything was going "up" they acted accordingly but took the wrong action for half the power station hence the accident!

Seems like an elegant idea. It might even be possible to scrub CO2 from the stored air which, over a long time period, could be beneficial. Nothing to stop liquid aur storage being underground either, which would limit damage come the inevitable explosion. It would seem to lend itself better to large scale storage rather than point-of-use fuelling of cars, etc.

 

I remember reading about an iron filing drive proposed for auto use in the New Scientist a few years ago - it was possible to store more energy per kilo than petrol by 'burning' canisters of iron filings in a thermite-type reaction. It was pretty theoretical though.

@flecc. I would be quite happy to see a nuke built in your backyard. Provided you agree to move to Mars. The actual cause of any particular nuclear accident is purely academic. Safe operation of nukes presupposes that nothing will ever go wrong, and the unforeseen will not happen. This has never happened in the history of humanity and it never will. In accidents with other forms of energy generation, the mess is cleaned up within months. Or at worst, within a decade. For Nukes, its 250,000 years. Also with nukes, it is the hidden deaths. Chernobyl deaths were not limited to Russia. People died, and continue to die throughout Europe, and in the UK. Fukushima is already killing people in California.

Nuclear Power is the worst mistake in the history of mankind.

And then there's the Thorium reactor approach to power generation which fell by the wayside early in the nuclear industry as it didn't have the useful bomb making material side product.

Chernobyl deaths were not limited to Russia. People died, and continue to die throughout Europe, and in the UK. Fukushima is already killing people in California.

Nuclear Power is the worst mistake in the history of mankind.

 

This is all quite ridiculous. The UK isn't even in the list of human possible death risk affected countries after Chernobyl. As for Fukushima already killing people in California, it's impossible! Iodine 131 does not kill, it induces thyroid cancer in the young with high levels of exposure, but that doesn't happen if the precautionary iodine tablets are taken after the accident as happened in Japan, but not at Chernobyl.

 

Caesium 137 at the levels after Fukushima simply cannot have caused any deaths anywhere, not even in the nearby residential areas in Japan. The nuclear vessels would have to be totally breached to achieve that level of caesium 137 or the more dangerous strontium 90, and that didn't happen. The only degree of risk is to the cleanup gangs in the Fukushima plant, but they're time limited and radiation meter level checked work makes that risk very, very low.

.

Edited October 7, 201213 yr by flecc

OK . We have all had a good rant about nukes, and obviously it is a subject on which we will never agree. Going back to the liquid air. We have said that it may find a use in storing grid energy. But one of the main problems it faces for use in road transport, is the need to carry a pressure vessel. The guy who built a liquid air car in his garage apparently used a beer keg. That would probably store enough energy for a few miles, but to attain a useful range, say 100 miles, we would be talking of very high pressure , probably thousands of pounds per square inch. If the vessel was punctured in an accident, the result would be similar to what happens when you release the neck of an inflated balloon. I might be fun while it lasted...

Nothing forgotten.

 

The nuclear major accidents were Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The outcomes of those were a very small number of deaths after Chernobyl and none after the other two. The deaths worldwide resulting from other generating methods are huge over just one ten year period: Hydroelectric over 800; Wind, over 300; Coal, beyond measurement worldwide but 68 per week average in China alone in that period.

 

Fukushima was not a nuclear accident, it was a Tsunami one after which the six reactors shut down automatically immediately and correctly. The radiation that followed resulted from overheated residual cooling water splitting and the hydrogen dispersing caesium 137 and iodine 131 into a small local area, with no risk of deaths, despite the hysteria.

 

These events do result in a power station mess that is difficult to clear up, but it's nothing compared to the vile mess that coal burning produces, CO2 and global warming, sulphur dioxide leading to acid rain wrecking forests and lakes, 4 million tons of ash per year into landfill from each typical station.

 

Nuclear is in fact clean, safe and cuddly, and I'd be very happy with a large nuclear power station on my doorstep, plus a long term store for spent materials.

 

THanks Flecc - you've saved me the trouble of writing a response - I agree with you entirely!

If the vessel was punctured in an accident, the result would be similar to what happens when you release the neck of an inflated balloon. I might be fun while it lasted...

 

Yes, because puncturing a different vessel carrying 70 litres of highly flammable liquid would be a better.

one of the main problems it faces for use in road transport, is the need to carry a pressure vessel.

 

Indeed, but it's been done already for hydrogen cars with the solution being the shielded tank stowed at the front of the boot area, this being the safest zone for it. That's reckoned to be safe enough for a dedicated car design.

"Will you kids be quiet in the back, remember you`re sitting on a bomb...

"Will you kids be quiet in the back, remember you`re sitting on a bomb...

 

And where are normal fuel tanks located?

Three mile Island was a design error looking for an accident. There were 2 reactors, the control consoles for each reactor were made left and right handed about a centreline thru the control room. Increasing analogue meter values on the left side went clockwise for reactor 1, whereas increasing meters on the right side went counter-clockwise for reactor 2 - this gave a beautifully balanced symmetrical image of the control room when photos were taken through the centre line. However in use prior to the accident the controllers were presented with needles going clockwise on both sides of the console suites (some readings going up, other readings actually going down) unfortunately under the stress of the situation they forgot about the left hand / right hand symmetry of their consoles - thinking everything was going "up" they acted accordingly but took the wrong action for half the power station hence the accident!

Sounds like a load of tripe.

@flecc. I would be quite happy to see a nuke built in your backyard. Provided you agree to move to Mars. The actual cause of any particular nuclear accident is purely academic. Safe operation of nukes presupposes that nothing will ever go wrong, and the unforeseen will not happen. This has never happened in the history of humanity and it never will. In accidents with other forms of energy generation, the mess is cleaned up within months. Or at worst, within a decade. For Nukes, its 250,000 years. Also with nukes, it is the hidden deaths. Chernobyl deaths were not limited to Russia. People died, and continue to die throughout Europe, and in the UK. Fukushima is already killing people in California.

Nuclear Power is the worst mistake in the history of mankind.

 

Hysterical bloody nonsense.

OK . We have all had a good rant about nukes, and obviously it is a subject on which we will never agree. Going back to the liquid air. We have said that it may find a use in storing grid energy. But one of the main problems it faces for use in road transport, is the need to carry a pressure vessel. The guy who built a liquid air car in his garage apparently used a beer keg. That would probably store enough energy for a few miles, but to attain a useful range, say 100 miles, we would be talking of very high pressure , probably thousands of pounds per square inch. If the vessel was punctured in an accident, the result would be similar to what happens when you release the neck of an inflated balloon. I might be fun while it lasted...

 

I doubt that a beer keg would be able to store liquid air at vapour pressure, it would explode. This guy must have insulated the keg and allowed some of the liquid to, "boil off" thus reducing both the temperature of the liquid and the pressure.

 

I'm not sure that your description of what would happen if the storage vessel were to be punctured is entirely accurate. The air would escape and rapidly remove heat from whatever it came into contact with as it changed state from liquid to gas. To the observer, this would probably appear as a rapidly forming localised fog, caused by water in the environment condensing. Of course, you wouldn't want the liquid air to come into contact with your skin because it would remove heat from that and cause severe damage.

 

Regardless of any safety aspects, this liquid air idea is not a solution to any energy problem. It appeals to the minds of the both the X-Factor viewing British public and the mis-fits who have recently set up camp at Hinkley Point because they think it is a zero emission fuel. The reality is that it is nothing more than a novelty news item intended to fill a gap in a scheduled TV slot.

 

We have a simple choice to make. If we want to carry on with our 21st century lifestyle, ballooning birth rates, uncontrolled imigration, cheap material goods from China, all of which consume energy in ever increasing quantities, then we need nuclear power plants. There isn't an alternative. Perhaps if you disagree, you would like to find some non energy consuming way of responding.

 

These unfortunate anti-nuclear protestors may have a mental illness and that's all very sad, it's not their fault. But should we really be putting them on telly to be laughed at? Should we allow them to campaign for a course of action which will bring missery to millions? I think not. Best that we put them somewhere out of the way so that they can't harm people. They are an enemy, a threat to you and your family.

Edited October 8, 201213 yr by tillson

Sounds like a load of tripe.

 

I agree. I remember a stuck valve and an indicator light which indicated the opposite of what the operator thought. The mirror-image dials sounds like an urban myth.

@Tillson. So you think that because I do not share your views, I should be somewhere out of the way where I can not harm anyone ? What happened to freedom of speech? The planet belongs to everyone, and that includes me.

I agree. I remember a stuck valve and an indicator light which indicated the opposite of what the operator thought. The mirror-image dials sounds like an urban myth.

The report (or one of them at least) was pretty scathing on operator training. It would appear that, far from being nuclear engineers or even having a degree in nuke physics of any sort, many of the operators were just button pushers and bum scratchers. They were trained in the "monkey see, monkey do" method of operating complex plant without any real understanding of what was going on out of sight.