Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,912   Posts: 1,521,601   Online: 879
      
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 378910111213
Results 121 to 129 of 129
  1. #121
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    The idea behind biomass is that it's fuel that can be cultivated and harvested. Be it wood, corn, soya beans, palm or cane, or whatever, you grow "fuel". You burn it, and then you burn each year a new harvest.

    Yes, ecological problems will always exists with any kind of fuel. As far as biomasses are concerned, besides the sulphur oxides, or the ashes of combustion, we should consider the chemicals used in agriculture, or the competition in arable land and water between "fuel" and "food".

    But it's a great progress compared to fossil fuels. It's much more sustainable, and economically it's "here" very competitive already, while solar energy and wind energy are still not competitive with fossil fuels and experience growth because of the heavy subsidies (I'm not against this kind of subsidies, as they have helped reaching a higher efficiency and economies of scale, but, so far, those alternative energy sources are not yet competitive with the "dirty" ones).

    Also, being limited in quantity, and relatively expensive, they force an energetic disciplines on economies. Cheap oil did not do that for decades.

    Humanity has, for many centuries or millennia, relied solely on biomasses. The lucky ones would burn their wood on fireplace which could reach, maybe, 8% efficiency being optimist.

    My wood and woodpellet stove is certified to deliver >85% efficiency. Some "accumulation stoves", typically with great mass (such as the Finnish Tulikiwi, to name a famous name) reach 90% efficiency. We can potentially produce 10 times more heat than, say, the ancient Romans while burning the same wood. It goes without saying that we can produce and transport much more wood than them. Add the corn, soya etc, plus the wood from discarded material, the gases from tenure etc and we have a huge amount of energy that we just "throw away" and that it's there ready to be economically exploited.

    All in all, biomasses are really the present of alternative fuels. Wind and solar are the future maybe. Nuclear fusion is probably more like a dream than a possibility, but who knows...

    Fabrizio

    PS Electric energy from nuclear fission was available a few years after the first atomic bomb. Decades have elapsed since the first hydrogen bomb and still no trace of energy from nuclear fusion.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    ...Maybe it's time to start conserving? It's the only answer.
    Ever-increasing worldwide human population is the problem. Energy conservation is but a delaying tactic. There is no real, long-term answer other than far fewer people. Won't happen until the whole thing crashes.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Toronto ON Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    547
    Maybe they were thinking about generating their own electricity and getting off the power grid. Hard to imagine we can track Iran's program and fuel while the AEC somehow lost track of 3.5 lbs of material. I smell a coverup. Maybe a project to see if it was possible to develop a system to see what it would take to fog beyond use film used in spy planes.

    I do wonder if other lage US companies may have similar little gems in their basements. Maybe someone like Dell trying to develop a miniture reactor to put into its laptops eliminating the need for batteries or, Chrysler developing a nuclear powered car; remember they developed the turbojet experimental cars.

  4. #124
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,919
    Images
    65
    Kodak has a rather large in-house power plant driven by coal and it also has a rather extensive internal railroad. Kodak had one of the first electrified railroads in the world as it could not use coal power due to cellulose nitrate. It is currently diesel.

    The coal for the various power plants is delivered to the Park in hopper cars pushed by switchers. The coal station is across Hanford Landing road from the delivery point of liquid chemistry such as Ammonium Hypo.

    Point is, they are already using coal.

    PE

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,771
    Images
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak has a rather large in-house power plant driven by coal and it also has a rather extensive internal railroad. Kodak had one of the first electrified railroads in the world as it could not use coal power due to cellulose nitrate. It is currently diesel.

    The coal for the various power plants is delivered to the Park in hopper cars pushed by switchers. The coal station is across Hanford Landing road from the delivery point of liquid chemistry such as Ammonium Hypo.

    Point is, they are already using coal.

    PE

    Their coal budget must have shrunk quite a lot by now. Such enormous overhead expenses.

  6. #126
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,919
    Images
    65
    Kodak Park is now Eastman Industrial Park. It rents space to other companies. It supplies their UPS.

    PE

  7. #127
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,553
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    The idea behind biomass is that it's fuel that can be cultivated and harvested. Be it wood, corn, soya beans, palm or cane, or whatever, you grow "fuel". You burn it, and then you burn each year a new harvest.
    The best thing about it is that any CO2 released by its burning is CO2 which was absorbed by it during the previous year rather than millions of years ago so the net release of CO2 into the atmosphere is zero.

    EDIT: Just noticed you already wrote words to that effect in a previous post!


    Steve.

  8. #128
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,919
    Images
    65
    However, we are creating more and more human beings and they emit CO2 and use O2. They also require more living space and to do that they burn biomass (forests) to clear areas for homes. They use the wood and plant materials for construction. The burning of forests to clear areas is so extensive in some areas that it can be clearly seen from space.

    Thus the cycle is short circuited and the net is increased CO2 emission.

    PE

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    Ever-increasing worldwide human population is the problem. Energy conservation is but a delaying tactic. There is no real, long-term answer other than far fewer people. Won't happen until the whole thing crashes.
    You're correct, of course, and I should have been clearer. Reducing the population is part of conservation.

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 378910111213


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin