|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2006 > Solar Fertilizer ... was OT: this is why ideology/ideologues suck
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Solar Fertilizer ... was OT: this is why ideology/ideologues suck
|
|
| pyotr filipivich 2006-02-14, 9:21 am |
| Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:56:28 GMT in misc.survivalism :
>
>
>Please make your case as to how solar will alleviate all of our energy
>needs.
>
>Please include a breakdown of cost per KWH of PIV, from the moment the
>ore is dug from the ground, though its processing into cells hung in
>your back yard. Also include a break down of the cost of the
>batteries, from ore to replacement. Be sure to include invironmental
>costs, from toxic wastes to energy costs to manufacture.
>
>Then as your coup de grace...give us an amortization of the above
>costs (along with maint costs) to energy payoff.
Gunner you missed his point. Seems to me, he has some "magic"
technology which will use solar energy to fertilize crop lands. This is
something I would like to hear more about.
--
pyotr filipivich
"MTV may talk about lighting fires and killing children,
but Janet Reno actually does something about it." --Spy Magazine
| |
| ghostwriter 2006-02-14, 10:21 am |
| It certainly is possible to use solar energy to make fertilizer.
Ammonia is the most common fertilizer and is produced by reduction of
nitrogen gas (compressed air actually) over hot catayst. The reducing
agent is hydrogen gas produced by partial oxidation of natural gas.
That same hydrogen could be made by solar energy if it was cheap enough
(BIG IF). A solar forge could then very easily heat the catayst to
make ammonia.
It would be EXTREMELY expensive to have enough solar capacity to make
the ammonia for a acre of crops. A much more reasonable way would be
to use small ammonia generators at individual farms (or a larger mobile
generator) and use the left over biomass (or specifically planted
biomass) to generate the hydrogen by partial oxidation. The other
product of partial oxidation is carbon monoxide and can be used as a
fuel source for either heating the catayst or running a still. It
actually works very well with the idea of a regionally based, mobile
still going from farm to farm. The biomass then produces the energy
for the still and the ammonia generater serves as a heat sink for waste
heat, all without transport being necessary.
Nothing paticularly magical about it, actually would be cheaper than
hauling a large tanker from a central production facility. But natural
gas is just starting to get to the price that investing capital in new
infrastructure might be economical. And of course is a lot more
invovled for the already busy farmer than just going and getting a tank
of anhydrous. It would be expensive and difficult to develop the actual
process and equipment. Handwaving it into existence is foolish. But it
isnt overunity type science.
| |
| Gunner 2006-02-14, 1:21 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:54:50 GMT, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:56:28 GMT in misc.survivalism :
>
> Gunner you missed his point. Seems to me, he has some "magic"
>technology which will use solar energy to fertilize crop lands. This is
>something I would like to hear more about.
Perhaps he has a humongous multi-seat solar powered composting toilet
that the entire county will come over and use?
Gunner
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3
| |
| Gunner 2006-02-14, 1:21 pm |
| On 14 Feb 2006 06:02:07 -0800, "ghostwriter"
<ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>It certainly is possible to use solar energy to make fertilizer.
>Ammonia is the most common fertilizer and is produced by reduction of
>nitrogen gas (compressed air actually) over hot catayst. The reducing
>agent is hydrogen gas produced by partial oxidation of natural gas.
>That same hydrogen could be made by solar energy if it was cheap enough
>(BIG IF). A solar forge could then very easily heat the catayst to
>make ammonia.
>
>It would be EXTREMELY expensive to have enough solar capacity to make
>the ammonia for a acre of crops. A much more reasonable way would be
>to use small ammonia generators at individual farms (or a larger mobile
>generator) and use the left over biomass (or specifically planted
>biomass) to generate the hydrogen by partial oxidation. The other
>product of partial oxidation is carbon monoxide and can be used as a
>fuel source for either heating the catayst or running a still. It
>actually works very well with the idea of a regionally based, mobile
>still going from farm to farm. The biomass then produces the energy
>for the still and the ammonia generater serves as a heat sink for waste
>heat, all without transport being necessary.
>
>Nothing paticularly magical about it, actually would be cheaper than
>hauling a large tanker from a central production facility. But natural
>gas is just starting to get to the price that investing capital in new
>infrastructure might be economical. And of course is a lot more
>invovled for the already busy farmer than just going and getting a tank
>of anhydrous. It would be expensive and difficult to develop the actual
>process and equipment. Handwaving it into existence is foolish. But it
>isnt overunity type science.
Excellent post. Thanks
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
| |
|
|
| ghostwriter 2006-02-15, 10:21 am |
| I would be interested in seeing what the cradle to grave efficiency of
such a system was. The major issue I have is that they are using
fairly exotic cataysts(paladium, with a celsium based ion membrane) in
a fuel cell type arrangement. The haber process just uses a iron
catayst but does reguire 200ATM.
Also this process uses electrical energy to force the reaction rather
than heat, and heat is more efficient to generate using low cost energy
inputs. This however is a prototype system and the first of its kind,
and the haber process is 90years old and well researched.
Thanks for the info
Ghostwriter
|
|
|
|
|