[AT] energy

[charlie hill]

Steve, I'm very aware of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  I'm 
just saying that sometimes it's necessary to live with some energy loss to 
obtain some portability in energy use.

As for the 5:1 or 1:1 on gasoline, I have no idea what the truth of that is. 
I don't doubt you for a minute  but by the same token I don't doubt for one 
minute that this guy who makes his living day in and day out in a 3 
gereration old family business knows what he's talking about too.  It could 
be, as you said, that something got lost in the translation.  Again, I'm not 
trying to argue with you or George.  In  fact I agree with you as far as my 
knowledge of the subject goes.  I'm just trying to learn more and I can't do 
that with out asking questions and stimulating this converstation.

You said I was a "bit optomistic" when I said "things" and you replied with 
"SOME" things.  Last time I checked the word "things" does not imply a 
number or percentage.  It is just that things and that is what I meant.  I 
did not say or imply ALL things or MOST things.  I can't help what you 
inferred.

As far as wood chips burning (or not) after the sugars are cooked out of 
them, paper burns doesn't it?

Finally I will take you and George to task on one thing and it's just a fine 
technical point.  The energy that is in crude oil (base for gasoline), coal, 
wood or any other fuel source did not get there magically.  It has just been 
stored there for a very long time and we get to use it for what it costs us 
to dig it up.  The laws of thermodynamics apply here too.  There is no free 
lunch.  What goes around comes around and all of it is still here in some 
other form.
I can cut a tree down and cut it into fire wood with a couple of gallons of 
gasoline.  I can burn that wood in my heater and keep warm for many days but 
it took about 100 years of absorbing CO2 and other nutrients to make that 
tree.  It's no different with oil, coal or any other "fuel source".  I know 
you are both aware of that but it didn't come across clearly in the previous 
post.

Charlie


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <soffiler at ct.metrocast.net>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: [AT] energy


> ----- Original Message Follows -----
> From: "charlie hill" <chill8 at suddenlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [AT] energy
> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:51:01 -0800
>
>>Steve,  as I said earlier, I had this same discussion last
>>week with an oil  jobber who lives with these issues every
>>day... I  was surprised last week when he told me that
>>it takes more energy to produce  gasoline than you get back
>>from it but I have no reason to doubt him.
>
> Hi Charlie:  I don't quite know how to address this.  I take
> as fact that the energy returned over energy input is 5:1
> for gasoline (where the arguements for and against ethanol
> are teeter-tottering either side of 1:1).  Your acquaintance
> is saying gasoline is near 1:1?  He's off by over half an
> order of magnitude i.e. not even in the ballpark.  Makes me
> wonder if something is getting lost in translation.
>
>>He also thinks that ethanol and bio is going to fly long
>>term.  He says the  paper companies are working on making
>>ethanol from wood chips and still  using the chips in their
>>production process.  I suspect not to make paper  but to
>>fuel their power houses.
>
> Once you extract the energy from wood chips and turn it into
> ethanol, I figure whatever remains isn't going to burn very
> well.  You took the energy out, remember?
>
>>I'm not taking a position here other than to say that I
>>don't think CO2 is a  problem and that a lot of the hype
>>over carbon fuels is bunk.
>
> Agreed!
>
> Other than  that I'm just
>>curious about the process.  It's a known fact that in
>>generations gone by things that were dismissed as
>>impossible are now in  every day use.  As a professor told
>>us in class one day, Engineering is  materials limited.
>>Meaning given the right materials (or technologies)
>>anything is possible (at some price).
>
> That's a bit optimistic.  Absolutely, SOME things dismissed
> as impossible are now in everyday use.  Agreed.   Where you
> need to watch your step is in violations of the first and
> second laws of thermodynamics, as George has pointed out.
> You still can't do that, despite all the can-do attitude in
> the world.  "Anything" still is not possible.
>
> Steve O.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at