Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 09:11

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Exhaust gas collection
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 18:43 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
How feasible would it be to collect all the exhaust gases from an engine into a container which could be emptied elsewhere?

And how could it be done?

Then you could have a vehicle with "zero local emissions" which would be good for driving around towns, right?

If someone could make use of them the exhaust gases they could be collected (maybe at filling stations) and processed somewhere, or you could even let it free in a forest. Trees like carbon dioxide, right? :)

Obviously such a device would add weight and would use energy, but could it do away with the need for a catalytic converter?

If the gases could be collected and processed centrally then the processing facility could have a catalytic converter which would always be "up to temperature" while in use.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 22:37 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
You put in 50 litres of fuel and add 10 times the volume of air. The waste product could be compressed but surely would weigh more than the 50 litres of fuel you put in.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 00:20 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
If I recall correctly, Saab experimented with a bag under the boot floor which collected the first few seconds of cold gas before the cat had "lit up" and then recirculated it through the engine after it had warmed up. Clearly that's not anywhere near the same scale as we're talking here but the idea has obviously been had in the past!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 00:24 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
anton wrote:
You put in 50 litres of fuel and add 10 times the volume of air.

The needed volume of air would be a bit more than 10x. For safe of argument let’s say the mass of fuel and oxidiser should be equal (won’t be far wrong) - quick mental maths puts the volume of air (not just oxygen) at ~200,000 litres.

anton wrote:
The waste product could be compressed but surely would weigh more than the 50 litres of fuel you put in.

You won't have to store the H20 part of the by-product, so it kinda cancels out (I can't be bothered to work out the numbers). I Dunno what would happen to the nitrogen (hopefully just passes through).

The CO2 by-product would have to be more or less compressed to a liquid form to enable storage using minimal volume. A quick Google shows that CO2 liquefies at 60 bar at room temp. I would say that a cooler will be needed to cool the CO2 exhaust down to room temp (as well as dissipate the heat from compression), otherwise way more pressure will be needed to compress it – probably approaching the useful power produced from the engine.

I stand to be corrected but I guess the energy needed for CO2 compression, as well as the additional energy required to lug the CO2, compressor, cooler and a pressurised tank, coupled with the additional energy needed for transportation of the C02 to the ‘release area’, could prove be too great to be of any real benefit.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 00:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
MSNBC wrote:
QUEENSFERRY, North Wales - The world’s richest corporations and finest minds spend billions trying to solve the problem of carbon emissions, but three fishing buddies in North Wales believe they have cracked it.

They have developed a box which they say can be fixed underneath a car in place of the exhaust to trap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming—including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide—and emit mostly water vapor.

The captured gases can be processed to create a biofuel using genetically modified algae.

Dubbed “Greenbox,” the technology developed by organic chemist Derek Palmer and engineers Ian Houston and John Jones could, they say, be used for cars, buses and eventually buildings and heavy industry, including power plants.

“We’ve managed to develop a way to successfully capture a majority of the emissions from the dirtiest motor we could find,” Palmer, who has consulted for organizations including the World Health Organization and GlaxoSmithKline, told Reuters.

The three, who stumbled across the idea while experimenting with carbon dioxide to help boost algae growth for fish farming, have set up a company called Maes Anturio Limited, which translates from Welsh as Field Adventure.

With the backing of their local member of parliament they are now seeking extra risk capital either from government or industry: the only emissions they are not sure their box can handle are those from aviation.

Capture rate
Although the box the men currently use for demonstration is about the size of a bar stool, they say they can build one small enough to replace a car exhaust that will last for a full tank of petrol.

The crucial aspect of the technology is that the carbon dioxide is captured and held in a secure state, said Houston. Other carbon capture technologies are much more cumbersome or energy-intensive, for example using miles of pipeline to transport the gas.

“The carbon dioxide, held in its safe, inert state, can be handled, transported and released into a controlled environment with ease and a minimal amount of energy required,” Houston said at a demonstration using a diesel-powered generator at a certified UK Ministry of Transportation emissions test center.

More than 130 tests carried out over two years at several testing centers have, the three say, yielded a capture rate between 85 and 95 percent. They showed the box to David Hansen, a Labor MP for Delyn, North Wales, who is now helping them.

“Based on the information, there is a clear reduction in emissions,” Hansen told Reuters.

“As a result, I’m facilitating meetings with the appropriate UK government agencies, as we want to ensure that British ownership and manufacturing is maintained.”

The men are also in contact with car-makers Toyota Motor Corp of Japan and General Motors Corp. of the United States. Houston said they have also received substantial offers from two unnamed Asian companies.

Both Toyota and General Motors declined to comment.

Secrets
If the system takes off, drivers with a Greenbox would replace it when they fill up their cars and it would go to a bio-reactor to be emptied.

Through a chemical reaction, the captured gases from the box would be fed to algae, which would then be crushed to produce a bio-oil. This extract can be converted to produce a biodiesel almost identical to normal diesel.

This biodiesel can be fed back into a diesel engine, the emptied Greenbox can be affixed to the car and the cycle can begin again.

The process also yields methane gas and fertilizer, both of which can be captured separately. The algae required to capture all of Britain’s auto emissions would take up around 1,000 acres

The three estimate that 10 facilities could be built across the UK to handle the carbon dioxide from the nearly 30 million cars on British roads.

The inventors say they have spent nearly 170,000 pounds ($348,500) over two years developing the “three distinct technologies” involved and are hoping to secure more funding for health and safety testing.

Not surprisingly, the trio won’t show anyone—not even their wives—what’s inside the box.

After every demonstration they hide its individual components in various locations across North Wales and the technology is divided into three parts, with each inventor being custodian of one section.

“Our three minds hold the three keys and we can only unlock it together,” said Houston.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Doesn't this sound like perpetual motion?

Pehaps they have forgotten that algae fix carbon from carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons by photosynthesis - an inefficient process that requires a great deal of energy?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
SafeSpeed wrote:
Doesn't this sound like perpetual motion?

Pehaps they have forgotten that algae fix carbon from carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons by photosynthesis - an inefficient process that requires a great deal of energy?


No it's way way worse.

Their '1,000 acre algae farm' is supposed to be making the fuel for the nation's vehicles [*]. Collecting exhaust gasses is a complete nonsense. If the algae farm works then there's no need at all to collect exhaust gasses - it can run on air and sunlight.

[*] because if it 'hydocarbonifies' the exhaust gasses for the nation's vehicles then it's fixed the energy required to power the nation's vehicles - it's the burning reaction in reverse.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 15:56 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
talking to yourself again paul ? :shock: :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 16:00 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Is it not just a case of dissolving out the carbon gas into washing soda with caustic soda?

Not saying if it's cost-effecvtive or practical, but if the volume of precipitated washing soda by bubbling the gas through caustic soda (or potassium carbonate through caustic potash if it's easier to make the reaction work) a way of getting the volumes manageable? Gawd knows what it will do to the bacik-pressure though ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 16:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Roger wrote:
Is it not just a case of dissolving out the carbon gas into washing soda with caustic soda?

Not saying if it's cost-effecvtive or practical, but if the volume of precipitated washing soda by bubbling the gas through caustic soda (or potassium carbonate through caustic potash if it's easier to make the reaction work) a way of getting the volumes manageable? Gawd knows what it will do to the bacik-pressure though ;-)


This is the old 'turns lime water milky' CO2 test isn't it? I seem to recall that small amounts of CO2 used up the other reactant quite quickly - in which case remember to fill your boot with lime before you set off...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 16:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
ed_m wrote:
talking to yourself again paul ? :shock: :wink:


Possibly.

If other folk don't know enough about energy in chemical reactions, then don't blame me. :hehe:

Clearly the 'inventors' are talking out of their hats. It took me about 30 minutes to realise that it was complete and utter bollocks. And as for changing 'greenboxes' when I fill up with fuel... Hahahahaha!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 17:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
4xNaOH + 4xCO2 +O2 = 4xNaCO3 + H2O I think - or it might be that it makes soda bic... 2xNaOH + CO2 = NaHCO3. Either way it is one on one molecule of caustic to one of CO2 -= and the by product is solid plus water

Yes I think it is the turbid test for something - but I forget what.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Reality and Emotion....
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 23:26 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 23:12
Posts: 1
Take emotion out of the equation and it leaves reality.

The reality is quite simple we have achieved what is being called the impossible.

The impossible either drives you forward to achieve or makes you get in the back seat and watch out of the window.

The chemistry involved is from a man aged 70 who has spent his life doing the things most only dream of.
Anybody with children or an allegedy to Penicillin, will understand what it is to have life. Amoxycillin has give them that chance, Dr Derek Palmer gave the world this drug, now as a team we give it another drug with 1000x more potent. The chance of a future for your children.

We understand the sceptics, at every corner we have turned we have proved the technology works.

Its quite simple if you break it down.

Catch CO2, release CO2, produce OIL from CO2.

No Rocket science here, just simple chemistry/physics/ballistics/engineeering and not forgetting BRITISH INGUNUITY.

The media circus is in town, so keep watching.

From Wales with LOVE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 03:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
maesanturioltd wrote:
No Rocket science here, just simple chemistry/physics/ballistics/engineeering and not forgetting BRITISH INGUNUITY.


ballistics?

So assuming that the algae farm works, give me ONE REASON why there's a benefit in collecting exhaust gases rather than running the algae farm on air? (Either way it'll fix the same amount of carbon and make the same amount of fuel.)

If this is 'British ingenuity', 2007 style, then I think we're heading for third world status.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 08:36 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
SafeSpeed wrote:
So assuming that the algae farm works, give me ONE REASON why there's a benefit in collecting exhaust gases rather than running the algae farm on air? (Either way it'll fix the same amount of carbon and make the same amount of fuel.)

Well, there is the elimination of the temporary transport through air, so there would be a bit less CO2 in the atmosphere. However, this is likely to be more than offset by the extra fuel needed to:
- lug the extra weight of the mobile farm around (at least an extra 100kg?)
- transport the CO2 to the release area
- process the goo
- the CO2 footprint from manufacturing the mobile farm.


Sounds like a load of ballistics to me :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:19 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
Twister wrote:
MSNBC wrote:
The carbon dioxide, held in its safe, inert state,


One of the key marketing phrases is based on the 'CO2 is toxic' FUD being circulated at the moment.

I think you hit the nail on the head Paul - if the biofuel algae farm works then why bother with the collection. The algae itself could cause ecological problems if it escaped into the local environment though so hopefully this would has been addressed in their plan.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:12 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:01
Posts: 1
SafeSpeed wrote:
So assuming that the algae farm works


Actually using algae farms to produce feedstock for biofuels, specifically biodiesel, is a well established principle and is being pursued around the world.

Equally many of them use CO2 as a growth booster.

As to the greenbox, that I don't know, but am more than happy to keep an open mind on the topic.

_________________
Biofuel Review - news for the biofuel industry
www.biofuelreview.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
giles wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
So assuming that the algae farm works


Actually using algae farms to produce feedstock for biofuels, specifically biodiesel, is a well established principle and is being pursued around the world.


I have no doubts that algae farms can work. I have extreme doubts that the folk concerned have any idea about what they are doing.

giles wrote:
Equally many of them use CO2 as a growth booster.

As to the greenbox, that I don't know, but am more than happy to keep an open mind on the topic.


It's one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen. I can see no reason for 'keeping an open mind'.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 18:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 20:19
Posts: 227
Roger wrote:
Is it not just a case of dissolving out the carbon gas into washing soda with caustic soda?

Not saying if it's cost-effecvtive or practical, but if the volume of precipitated washing soda by bubbling the gas through caustic soda (or potassium carbonate through caustic potash if it's easier to make the reaction work) a way of getting the volumes manageable? Gawd knows what it will do to the bacik-pressure though ;-)



Ca(OH)2 + CO2 = CaCO3 + H2O (I believe is exothermic. Perhaps that kind of positive energy release is a way to offset costs?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 01:26 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I think you'd need to lug a hell of a lot of calcium hydroxide round with you!

This, of course, is where battery-electric cars do really well. You don't have to carry the "clean-up" technology with you - it stays at the power station.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.726s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]