Real Green Energy

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Concept

Re the electric car debate - hydrogen vehicles get around the lithium supply issue, I believe.

Out of the fire and into the frying pan -- today's hydrogen fuel cells require a platinum-plated catalyst. Here's a pretty good schematic courtesy of Wikipedia. The trade-off is that the platinum, as a catalyst, will last longer than the lithium, which is more of a "fuel" source, so the $-per-gram-usage for platinum may be less than for lithium. Still, you're going to run into the problem of cost. You're also going to run into the problem of people doing with platinum-utilizing hydrogen fuel cells what they did with catalytic converters back in the day -- steal them and sell them for money on the black market. Hell, according to this article, they're still stealing catalytic converters for the metal inside. I had been told by my inorganic chemistry professor in college that this wasn't a problem as much anymore. I guess that may be -- it just means they were REALLY stealing 'em back in the day! But yeah. $2,000 an ounce ain't cheap.

Originally Posted by unownmew

I'm not asking you to give me the entire ins and outs of everything you've learned, just a slight course re-adjustment, letting me know I'm lacking, and need to look into it further.

The problem is that you do this all the time. You require too much work, too much investment, and you are neither my child nor my pupil. It is mind-boggling how blindly you accept so many of the most ludicrous aspects of your religion yet you then turn around and say, "Well since they didn't leave the shark in the ocean, we can't really be sure that it was what was causing all the surfer deaths, so ... *shrug*" >_<; times one million

Originally Posted by unownmew

If we had stopped hearing about them without a resolution (such as them being made illegal), it would be evidence that they were never really a problem (or the people warning about it, didn't really care about the problem itself, and were just using it for their agenda). Being as they have been made illegal, I have nothing to stand on, and, while I don't doubt the science behind what they can chemically do, I do have doubts about their actual environmental impact. Since these doubts are currently unprovable, I accept your position as undebatable.

Even if I wanted to, I can't possibly give you a crash course in environmental chemistry in just one post; and I don't want to, so if you're genuinely interested in proving to yourself that CFCs deplete ozone from the atmosphere and played a significant part in the formation of the ozone layer hole -- or if you're that passionate about trying to disprove the theory -- then I suggest you take some college chemistry courses, enroll in an upper level (300-level or 400-level) earth & atmospheric sciences (EAS) course, go from there. If not, here's a paragraph for you to mull over.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

The problem is that you do this all the time. You require too much work, too much investment, and you are neither my child nor my pupil.

I never asked you to do anything for me. If you think it's a waste of time, stop doing it. If you insist on making sure I am corrected, then find some sort of very short message or symbol you can use to let me know, "hey, that's not right, do some more research," without putting much time or effort into it.
Of course, in an actual debate where the points are being discussed, as opposed to an offhanded comment, I fully expect anyone wishing to weigh in, to support their opinions with some kind of facts or numbers that can be verified, and strive to do so myself. (Just because someone doesn't like another's sources, does don't make their point any less worthwhile, if there are numbers that can be confirmed, or proven false.)

fair enough?

It is mind-boggling how blindly you accept so many of the most ludicrous aspects of your religion yet you then turn around and say, "Well since they didn't leave the shark in the ocean, we can't really be sure that it was what was causing all the surfer deaths, so ... *shrug*" >_<; times one million

If you are honestly curious as to why I believe what I believe in regards to religion, feel free to ask in the religion debate thread (or make a new debate thread solely for my religion), and I'll be happy to explain, to the best of my abilities, why I find my beliefs to be logically sound, and absolutely true.
If you want hard proof as to the truth of my religion, I can give you that too, but make sure you're prepared for the responsibility.
Otherwise, don't bring it up.

Even if I wanted to, I can't possibly give you a crash course in environmental chemistry in just one post; and I don't want to, so if you're genuinely interested in proving to yourself that CFCs deplete ozone from the atmosphere and played a significant part in the formation of the ozone layer hole -- or if you're that passionate about trying to disprove the theory -- then I suggest you take some college chemistry courses, enroll in an upper level (300-level or 400-level) earth & atmospheric sciences (EAS) course, go from there. If not, here's a paragraph for you to mull over.

As much as I love learning, I had absolutely no desire for this thread to become a debate thread, and find the topic completely irrelevant to the OP. I've already conceded to your POV, and do not wish to discuss it further here, nor do I find it worth my time to bring up elsewhere at the moment.

[Talon87]

You don't seem to understand how cruelly unfair your ignorance is to me or to the rest of us. What takes you only one minute to type out -- "I don't believe in evolution," for example -- takes us hours of cross-linking you to papers, textbook citations, academic journals, and the like just in order to meet your declaration of what is required of us to convince you of anything. And even after we do that you just dismiss it like the troll you've been accused of being -- "Nope, not convinced" -- and there go several hours of our lives, wasted and never to return.

So you can come onto UPN and post five anti-intellectual turds on five radically different topics -- climate change, alternative fuel sources, evolution, vaccination, and paleontology, for example -- and it turns into days of us having to educate you and clean up after your mess.

It's terribly, terribly unfair and the fairest solution is for you to quit disseminating misinformation. It is not fair to the other patrons of this board to adopt the plan of attack that I simply ignore you and let your misinformation slide -- lest you misinform them. It is fairer to the community if you provide the onus of proof for your claims up front. If you're wanting to boldly declare that CFCs don't contribute towards global warming or ozone depletion, then quite frankly the onus is on you, not on me, to back up those claims with evidence. And if you're too lazy or uncommitted towards doing so, then I kindly suggest you not bring the matter up.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

You don't seem to understand how cruelly unfair your ignorance is to me or to the rest of us. What takes you only one minute to type out -- "I don't believe in evolution," for example -- takes us hours of cross-linking you to papers, textbook citations, academic journals, and the like just in order to meet your declaration of what is required of us to convince you of anything. And even after we do that you just dismiss it like the troll you've been accused of being -- "Nope, not convinced" -- and there go several hours of our lives, wasted and never to return.

If you're referring to the debate threads, the purpose of debate is to share information and sources to come to a conclusion. In that sense, it is entirely expected for you to bring your sources, and it is for me to bring my own. What you take for absolute fact, I consider a gross fraud and provable misinformation scheme, (Man-made Global Warming). What takes you only 1 minute to say, "Look at all the scientists that agree with man-made global warming, how dare you question their intellect. The evidence is undeniable!" Takes me numerous long hours of crosslinking you to alternate information sources and academic papers and typing up a paper-long response to your views, just to show your "undeniable proof" isn't quite so undeniable, and that my view is just as worth debating as you think your's is right. And even after I do, you just say, "nope, that information isn't worth discussing, it's completely biased and untrustworthy." or you ignore the points completely.
And when I try to pick your arguments apart with logic, I don't even get a direct response to it. And there goes hours of my life wasted and never to return.


If you're referring to an offhand comment I make, all those sources are completely unneeded, I just need to be pointed in the right direction, like "That's not right, how about you check wikipedia on that topic." And then you can move on

So you can come onto UPN and post five anti-intellectual turds on five radically different topics -- climate change, alternative fuel sources, evolution, vaccination, and paleontology, for example -- and it turns into days of us having to educate you and clean up after your mess.

IMO, I'm the one trying to clean up the mess, the mess of misinformation regarding them. If you're so confident in the undeniability of the topics, how would my miniscule efforts undermine that and convince others otherwise?

It's terribly, terribly unfair and the fairest solution is for you to quit disseminating misinformation. It is not fair to the other patrons of this board to adopt the plan of attack that I simply ignore you and let your misinformation slide -- lest you misinform them. It is fairer to the community if you provide the onus of proof for your claims up front. If you're wanting to boldly declare that CFCs don't contribute towards global warming or ozone depletion, then quite frankly the onus is on you, not on me, to back up those claims with evidence. And if you're too lazy or uncommitted towards doing so, then I kindly suggest you not bring the matter up.

it's terribly terribly unfair that skeptics be ganged up on and told to "shut up," when they may actually have a valid point, just because you disagree with it.

Galileo was just as accused of disseminating misinformation when he proposed the "heretical" view that, Earth may not actually be the center of the universe.
How impossible! Earth is undeniably the center of the universe, how dare you suggest otherwise! The Bible proves it! (back when the Bible was a reliable source)

[Princess Ana]

Well, after reminating over the topic with the last of my reduced fat Doritos, I came to a conclusion:

Going completely on one energy source is bad and you should feel bad.

Really? We can be so close-minded sometimes. Why don't we make a solar-wind combination car that has a hydrogen gas backup? Three sources of energy there peoples!

We should use this thread to start ideas, not argue about stupid stuff.

So, my idea up front, I have a mind plan for ya.

[unownmew]

Thank you for changing the tone. We should use the thread for ideas, not arguing.

I agree, using multiple energy sources is the best idea and fully support it.

My favored method: Solar Thermal generator boiling water for a steam engine or steam electric generator, completely clean and efficient. Usable for practically any power plant application, easy to convert from fossil fuel power plants, and while maybe not the most aerodynamic design for cars, may work somewhat.

Though I would like to burn wood in a steam engine car. ^^;

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Thank you for changing the tone. We should use the thread for ideas, not arguing.

I agree, using multiple energy sources is the best idea and fully support it.

My favored method: Solar Thermal generator boiling water for a steam engine or steam electric generator, completely clean and efficient. Usable for practically any power plant application, easy to convert from fossil fuel power plants, and while maybe not the most aerodynamic design for cars, may work somewhat.

Though I would like to burn wood in a steam engine car. ^^;

That makes sense. If you remember that PopSci magazine, you can also read about the guy who made a solar 3-D printer. Awesome stuff there.

My plan was to put solar panels on top of the car, wind turbines on the doors of the cars, and a hydrogen battery for emergencies or listening to the radio at night.

Albiet, parking spaces and roads would have to be widened.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

That makes sense. If you remember that PopSci magazine, you can also read about the guy who made a solar 3-D printer. Awesome stuff there.

My plan was to put solar panels on top of the car, wind turbines on the doors of the cars, and a hydrogen battery for emergencies or listening to the radio at night.

Albiet, parking spaces and roads would have to be widened.

Cool.

That may work, but, I think the wind turbines would lower aerodynamics, thereby reducing efficiency. It would also require infrastructure changes, both for the wind turbines and making hydrogen available, which is one of the major reasons the hydrogen car hasn't been adopted. I'm not fond of the inefficiencies of Solar Electric energy
I completely support end-user modifications to utilize those energies though, as per steampunk philosophies. Who cares what the efficiency is if it works and looks cool?

Personally, I hope to (someday) modify a car to use a steam engine with a boiler and furnace. Coal, Oil, Peat, Wood, Paper, Trash, ect, burning.


My favorite future clean fuel mode of transport though would be: The Aeromodeller2
Though I want it to run on sail power (Kinetic Wind Power), and steam, with the propellers as secondaries and energy generation.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Cool.

That may work, but, I think the wind turbines would lower aerodynamics, thereby reducing efficiency. It would also require infrastructure changes, both for the wind turbines and making hydrogen available, which is one of the major reasons the hydrogen car hasn't been adopted. I'm not fond of the inefficiencies of Solar Electric energy
I completely support end-user modifications to utilize those energies though, as per steampunk philosophies. Who cares what the efficiency is if it works and looks cool?

Personally, I hope to (someday) modify a car to use a steam engine with a boiler and furnace. Coal, Oil, Peat, Wood, Paper, Trash, ect, burning.


My favorite future clean fuel mode of transport though would be: The Aeromodeller2
Though I want it to run on sail power (Kinetic Wind Power), and steam, with the propellers as secondaries and energy generation.

You make some valid points. I was thinking of making them seem seamless with the doors, looking sort of like jet turbines. Solar energy is a bit inefficient, but, like I said, it is not going to be the only power source. Hydrogen is back-up. They have been looking into new ways to store it, but, I think that a quick release metal might do the trick for back-up energy.

That hydrogen blimp looks awesome. But, it the hydrogen going to be used for fuel AND lift?

A car that runs off of combustion of trash can be done, though, it would have some harmful effects, like the release of some gases that could cause problems.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

You make some valid points. I was thinking of making them seem seamless with the doors, looking sort of like jet turbines. Solar energy is a bit inefficient, but, like I said, it is not going to be the only power source. Hydrogen is back-up. They have been looking into new ways to store it, but, I think that a quick release metal might do the trick for back-up energy.

That may work. I've heard of quick release metals, but I think they haven't perfected them yet. But, nothing stopping you from modding yourself with what's available right now. (except maybe cash.)

That hydrogen blimp looks awesome. But, it the hydrogen going to be used for fuel AND lift?

Yup, lift and fuel. Basically it stores the hydrogen in the ballonets for lift, and siphons (I guess) some of it off for power. I assume there'll be some ballonets that just fill with hydrogen and top off every now and then to stabilize lift.

Although when you seriously analyze the design, you find there's a few things he's forgotten to consider.

(How are you going to anchor 50 meters up without a ground crew? Bathroom? How do you go about restocking supplies like food and water if you don't ever land? If it uses rain to form the hydrogen fuel (and I assume drinking water as well), what if it doesn't rain? Storm-survivability? 6 Hours of recharge time for just 1 hour of flight? In-flight maintenance and repair? Don't fly above the clouds, or your "outdoor cockpit and veranda" are going to be worthless due to low pressure oxygen.)

A car that runs off of combustion of trash can be done, though, it would have some harmful effects, like the release of some gases that could cause problems.

No, no, a steam car doesn't run off combustion, it uses burning to produce heat to create and pressurize steam.
Though, burning plastics does produce noxious fumes.. But if I'm the only one using them, shouldn't be a problem for the environment.
I'd mostly use bio-trash though, like food scraps and non-plastic packaging.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by unownmew

That may work. I've heard of quick release metals, but I think they haven't perfected them yet. But, nothing stopping you from modding yourself with what's available right now. (except maybe cash.)

Well, the only problem with the ones we have right now are the fact that they hold not a lot of hydrogen. A current study into metal ceramics may fix that.

Yup, lift and fuel. Basically it stores the hydrogen in the ballonets for lift, and siphons (I guess) some of it off for power. I assume there'll be some ballonets that just fill with hydrogen and top off every now and then to stabilize lift.

Although when you seriously analyze the design, you find there's a few things he's forgotten to consider.

(How are you going to anchor 50 meters up without a ground crew? Bathroom? How do you go about restocking supplies like food and water if you don't ever land? If it uses rain to form the hydrogen fuel (and I assume drinking water as well), what if it doesn't rain? Storm-survivability? 6 Hours of recharge time for just 1 hour of flight? In-flight maintenance and repair? Don't fly above the clouds, or your "outdoor cockpit and veranda" are going to be worthless due to low pressure oxygen.)

All true. I think that hydrogen blimps could be done nowadays, because we can detect leaks better than when the Hindenburg went down. All in all, it could be pretty cool.


No, no, a steam car doesn't run off combustion, it uses burning to produce heat to create and pressurize steam.
Though, burning plastics does produce noxious fumes.. But if I'm the only one using them, shouldn't be a problem for the environment.
I'd mostly use bio-trash though, like food scraps and non-plastic packaging.

That is the way to do it. Though, making compost seems to be better. If you can grow some of your own food, it makes things a lot better. (And costs less money ) Vegetable oil from restaurants can be used, and is being used. Though, steam sounds like a good idea to go with that.

One thing though, how are you going to control the heat created by causing steam?

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

Well, the only problem with the ones we have right now are the fact that they hold not a lot of hydrogen. A current study into metal ceramics may fix that.

Well, I hope they get it done, and make them cheap enough to use instead of gasoline. My issue with cars that require processed fuel/batteries though, is they rely too much on society to be viable outside of it.

A steam car could be used anywhere and at anytime without any special considerations, even in an apocalypse, so long as the engine works, and you have access to water.

All true. I think that hydrogen blimps could be done nowadays, because we can detect leaks better than when the Hindenburg went down. All in all, it could be pretty cool.

The Hindenburg didn't go down because of a leak, something sparked or ignited (no one knows what), caught the body on fire, and burst the ballonets containing the hydrogen, causing a giant fireball that consumed the entire ship in a matter of seconds. Better fire control like enveloping the hydrogen in nitrogen so it doesn't burn as fast or as large, would do well to prevent a Hindenburg disaster from happening again.

That is the way to do it. Though, making compost seems to be better. If you can grow some of your own food, it makes things a lot better. (And costs less money ) Vegetable oil from restaurants can be used, and is being used. Though, steam sounds like a good idea to go with that.

One thing though, how are you going to control the heat created by causing steam?

Composting would be useful in an end of the world scenario, but if you're going to grow for yourself efficiently, you'll need a good-sized plot of land and a favorable climate.

If you're on the road though, you can easily toss your fast food leftovers, (and packaging) into the furnace and viola, more range/speed. Vegetable oil sounds like a good fuel too, but you can't get much better then wood without turning to fossil fuels (natural gas would be a good fuel too, now that I think of it).

How am I going to control the heat? I probably wont. ^^; Or the same way they did it in the past, I haven't gone far into that yet. Do I need to control the heat?

[Loki]

Originally Posted by unownmew

A steam car could be used anywhere and at anytime without any special considerations, even in an apocalypse, so long as the engine works, and you have access to water.

What exactly is heating up this magic steam car that makes it any different from a combustion engine? You're going to need an outside fuel source to heat the water into steam.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

What exactly is heating up this magic steam car that makes it any different from a combustion engine? You're going to need an outside fuel source to heat the water into steam.

Fire. Obviously.

In a combustion engine, a series of explosions are required to create piston movement, and all combustion engines made now are designed specifically to run on ONLY gasoline.

In a steam engine, heat energy is consistently transferred into water (instead of in a series of various spikes of explosive power), which boils into steam, which has a higher base pressure then regular water and air, and forces the pistons to move. Once the steam has done it's job, it's either left to the open air, or, for maximum efficiency, condensed back into water to be boiled again into steam.

The beauty of a steam engine comes from the fact that the heat energy can be created by ANYTHING that burns, not just gas or oil. (Wood, trash, coal, natural gas, hydrogen, other plant matter, cardboard, paper, anything really you can find that is flammable)
And for an even cleaner operation, you can utilize Solar Thermal Energy to boil the water instead, eliminating the need for a stored fuel source entirely.

[Loki]

Steam cars are half as powerful or as energy efficient as a gas powered car due to the multiple times you would need to convert energy. Fuel => fire/heat => water => water vapor.

Add in the risks of boiler explosions due to metal fatigue or decay, improper maintenance, too low a level of water, or too high a level of water, and a whole lot of factors, I can't really imagine a steam car working too well in an apocalypse scenario. I'd rather get a horse.

If you want, they still made steam cars (for public use) up until like the 1920s. I'm sure if you had the money and resources, you could probably get one IRL.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

Steam cars are half as powerful or as energy efficient as a gas powered car due to the multiple times you would need to convert energy. Fuel => fire/heat => water => water vapor.

Power? I think you're referring to the old kind of steam engines.
As for efficiency, a combustion engine loses a ton of energy efficiency in the way of "waste heat," during operation, as well it requires several rotations before reaching full power.

With a Steam Engine, there is no waste heat, and full power is provided at engine start.

Add in the risks of boiler explosions due to metal fatigue or decay, improper maintenance, too low a level of water, or too high a level of water, and a whole lot of factors, I can't really imagine a steam car working too well in an apocalypse scenario. I'd rather get a horse.

Well if you have a trained horse, sure, but good luck finding one of those in city ruins.
As for the problems you mentioned, those are specific to old style steam engines.
It would seem you missed these two links from the OP, so I'll bring them up again. (Steam Engine 1, Steam Engine 2) Please do look into them before decrying the faults of the steam engine.

If you want, they still made steam cars (for public use) up until like the 1920s. I'm sure if you had the money and resources, you could probably get one IRL.

I would like to, but, I lack the money and resources, and I'd prefer to have a more updated and efficient steam engine running my car anyway.

[Loki]

Never heard of that.

But your "Runs on anything in an apocalypse scenario" seems a bit stretched. By those websites, they don't run on trash, cardboard, and anything flammable. They ran off of biofuels and some other items including cooking oil and such, but not your miraculous anything.

Anyway, can't expect the world to know about every prototype. I talked about old school steam engines because those are the ones I knew about. Nice find.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

You are so misinformed. Or willingly blind. Or mentally handicapped. Let's politely opt for "uninformed."

Do you seriously believe that we moved away from a more efficient engine to a less efficient one? Engine efficiency has been the name of the game since always. Steam engines are ridiculously Carnot-inefficient as compared with modern combustion engines. You keep plugging heat as this wonderful resource to drive an engine -- but by definition, by actual thermodynamics definition, heat is the energy lost and unable to perform work! So ignorant! So misinformed!

I know you're a conservative extremist who'd like to see us return to the glorious 1800s , but your fascination with steam power is more than a little misguided: it's offensively, patently ignorant.

I do not appreciate your suggestion that I am "mentally handicapped," I find it insulting, but even if I were "mentally handicapped" (which handicap btw are you referring to? There definition is varied and broad, with many differing outcomes), does that mean you have the right to insinuate insults at me? As for your comments about being a conservative extremist, I would counter, that, any conservative notions would be considered extreme in such a liberal world, and wear the badge proudly. But that does not forgive your attempts to insult and alienate my views, which I am perfectly allowed to have, same as you have yours.

I am not so "uninformed," on this matter as you would believe, if anything, I am, differently informed than you.


Do I believe that we moved from a more efficient steam engine to a less efficient internal combustion one?

HELL YES I DO!


The problems steam cars had were mostly cosmetic and user friendliness, with internal combustion making faster advances then steam was at the time.

The biggest reason the combustion engine took off while the steam engine faltered, is due to Henry Ford's Model T, which was mass produced and sold for cheap, and used the combustion engine. Had Steam Power been given that chance, there's no doubt it would have soared just as well.

Atm, combustion engines have a certain efficiency, because of all the time and scientific advancement given to them since then, while steam engines have be left to rust (literally). Give the steam engine that same duration and advancement, and we'll see comparable results. Of course, I'm sure there's all sorts of other petty politics that were involved at the time as well that helped the decline of the steam engine.



If the Internal combustion engine is so powerful and fuel efficient, why is it that power plants utilize Steam for Electrical energy production as opposed to the "clearly" more efficient internal combustion engine?

One more beauty of the Steam engine, is that, it represents energy independence, as opposed to relying on fossil fuels, it can be used with any burnable material.

Raytheon seems to be pulling for new steam technology for military use.. http://www.raytheon.com/technology_t...i1/engine.html
I'm more apt to trust their scientific judgement then yours.

Again, have you read either of the sites I linked detailing one of two new, modern steam engines?

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

Never heard of that.

But your "Runs on anything in an apocalypse scenario" seems a bit stretched. By those websites, they don't run on trash, cardboard, and anything flammable. They ran off of biofuels and some other items including cooking oil and such, but not your miraculous anything.

Anyway, can't expect the world to know about every prototype. I talked about old school steam engines because those are the ones I knew about. Nice find.

The "Anything is available", relies entirely on the furnace construction, if you have an open furnace where you can toss stuff in, anything that burns can be utilized, if you build it so it requires funneling a gas or liquid into the chamber, then you're stuck with just fuels that fit that definition.

Old time combustion engines used to be able to be run on various fuels too, but they phased that out (I wonder why )

I don't expect everyone to know the new prototypes, but then, that's why I mentioned them specifically in the OP, which I assumed people had read thoroughly.

[Talon87]

Nuclear energy cannot be harnessed directly and so is used to heat water baths. It is in effect a giant steam engine. That stated, ridiculous amounts of potential energy are lost as heat.

Steam engines are used in grounded applications (factories by rivers, nuclear power plants, etc) because of the abundance of water. In terms of portability, petroleum-based engines are far superior because the fuel used to generate the heat for thermal expansion is also the source for the expanding gas. Steam engines in cars, trains, planes, and other mobile devices just don't cut it because to make them work you have to carry both heat-fuel (e.g. coal) and expansion-fuel (e.g. water). That's extra weight, extra volume, just overall pointless. Why burn gasoline to heat up some water when you can have that gasoline be the water?

[unownmew]

I appreciate the lack of personal attacks in this post. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Talon87

Nuclear energy cannot be harnessed directly and so is used to heat water baths. It is in effect a giant steam engine. That stated, ridiculous amounts of potential energy are lost as heat.

Not just nuclear energy, but fossil fuel power plants use steam as well, burn the fuel, heat the water, turn the turbine.

I also disagree with the "loss of potential energy as heat," It is the "heat" that does the work for creating steam, so all heat is used to create steam and steam pressure. More heat = more pressure.

Granted, it is impossible to harness every single particle of heat energy, and always will be, so, that's a non-issue. The key is using the most heat available as possible for the application, which is a HUGE limiting factor in Internal combustion.
(In fact, you could design a steam engine to run off just the excess heat from an internal combustion engine.. That's got to say a lot about the energy efficiency of the contraption.)

If heat efficiency is your goal, Modulating boilers around a central heat source could provide a wealth of energy at your disposal. (I'm not sure anyone's tried this though, so it's theory ATM.)

Steam engines are used in grounded applications (factories by rivers, nuclear power plants, etc) because of the abundance of water. In terms of portability, petroleum-based engines are far superior because the fuel used to generate the heat for thermal expansion is also the source for the expanding gas. Steam engines in cars, trains, planes, and other mobile devices just don't cut it because to make them work you have to carry both heat-fuel (e.g. coal) and expansion-fuel (e.g. water). That's extra weight, extra volume, just overall pointless. Why burn gasoline to heat up some water when you can have that gasoline be the water?

I concede that portability can be a limiting factor for steam engines, but water usage can easily be regulated by condensing the steam back into water to be recycled as more steam and pressure, thereby improving efficiency and water retention upwards of 70% That's not something you can do with a combustion engine. In fact, if you wanted to, you could even use the heat from the cooling steam to evaporate more water and create more steam. Now THAT'S efficiency. (Now that I think about it, I think that may be what the cyclone engine does, actually, I'll have to read it again, I don't quite remember.)

Steam may not be very small (yet), but it can be much more powerful and energy efficient for the amount of fuel used, and heat lost than the internal combustion engine. Given the opportunity, I believe it can easily rival, and even beat internal combustion engines.

[Princess Ana]

This is becoming somewhat argumentative.

I think both sides have some good points. The heat is going to be a problem. Even if you do not use the heat for motion, it could be used for other things, such as heat in the car itself.

Any more ideas?

[unownmew]

Thanks Blaze, for interfering, I appreciate it.

Space heating is one benefit of Steam Engines, you'll rarely be cold in winter.

I mentioned above, you could cycle the steam around water to use it's excess heat while condensing for further steam generation.

You could also (possibly) add extra boiler modules to the central heat source for extra piston movement, for more efficiency, but I think that would have to be relegated to static installations, instead of vehicles.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by unownmew

I also disagree with the "loss of potential energy as heat," It is the "heat" that does the work for creating steam, so all heat is used to create steam and steam pressure. More heat = more pressure.

I don't think you understand: this isn't up for debate. The definition of heat is "change in energy of a system other than work done on/by the system." In other words, by definition, heat is non-work energy or heat is the energy unavailable to perform work. In layman's terms? HEAT ITSELF DOESN'T MOVE SHIT.

Now, the way a steam engine works is rather clever: it takes that heat, which is nominally wasted energy, and has it transform liquid water into very hot water. And, if you're lucky!, into steam. The thermal expansion of steam performs work on the system. (In this case, the piston or pistons of the engine.) It isn't the heat doing the work: it's the work doing the work. Work is work, heat is heat, they are mutually exclusive.

Now comes the problem: you claimed, disastrously erroneously >_<, that "with a Steam Engine, there is no waste heat." This is wrong. As the thermally-expanded gas performs work on the system (i.e. pushes the pistons up), it is cooled by the comparatively cooler pistons. (The engine block in turn is cooled by the other parts of the machine and by the ambient air; this in turn is cooled by the remoter ambient air and the ground; etc, etc.) This cooling makes the water less kinetically energetic, i.e. it has less "punch" by which it pushes on the pistons, and the heat is lost irreversibly: into the engine it goes and then out into the great beyond. You want the water to get hot again? You better burn more fuel.

Originally Posted by unownmew

Granted, it is impossible to harness every single particle of heat energy

I'm sorry. "Particle"? Maybe you've been reading different physical chemistry texts than I have. I'm pretty sure we don't talk about "heat particles."

Originally Posted by unownmew

Steam may not be very small (yet), but it can be much more powerful and energy efficient for the amount of fuel used, and heat lost than the internal combustion engine. Given the opportunity, I believe it can easily rival, and even beat internal combustion engines.

Maybe. The very notion of a small heat engine is under fire as we consider alternative ways of transforming energy source A into mechanical work B in small or mobile devices. These include electric motors (whose parent energy sources would doubtless come from large generators, many of which would be powered by nuclear-heated or coal-heated water, it's true) amongst other candidates. But yeah: I wouldn't hold your breath for Last Exile to come to life. It's looking much more likely that (a) we're going to continue to use chemical reactions for the next 50+ years and that (b) we're heading towards electric motors after that owing to their (surprise!) complete trivialization of the problem of energy lost as heat. For example, I'd like to see small steam engines do this.

[Loki]

Originally Posted by unownmew

The "Anything is available", relies entirely on the furnace construction, if you have an open furnace where you can toss stuff in, anything that burns can be utilized, if you build it so it requires funneling a gas or liquid into the chamber, then you're stuck with just fuels that fit that definition.

This type of steam engine is the type I referred to before with major malfunctions. You're talking about what is typically a boiler chamber and a heat source. Heat will eventually and slowly destroy anything, just as anything being bombarded with energy will eventually be destroyed. And since the heat is being applied to the boiler, the boiler will eventually have some level of catastrophic failure. In an apocalypse scenario, you will not likely be capable of getting replacement parts for such a peculiar engine.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

I don't think you understand: this isn't up for debate. The definition of heat is "change in energy of a system other than work done on/by the system." In other words, by definition, heat is non-work energy or heat is the energy unavailable to perform work. In layman's terms? HEAT ITSELF DOESN'T MOVE SHIT.

Oh, that's what you meant. I was unaware of that definition of heat, I always understood heat as, thermal energy, or just energy in motion (Absolute zero has no heat, and no movement, while under any other temperature, all molecules are vibrating at a certain rate, and therefore have heat), which can be used for various kinds of work (not physics definition work, just to be clear here), such as cooking, or melting metal, growing plants (the sun), or in this case, evaporating water to turn it into steam.

In this example, the heat is not moving anything, but it is doing work (again, maybe not the physics definition of work, but, I think (I hope) you understand what I mean here.

Now, the way a steam engine works is rather clever: it takes that heat, which is nominally wasted energy, and has it transform liquid water into very hot water. And, if you're lucky!, into steam. The thermal expansion of steam performs work on the system. (In this case, the piston or pistons of the engine.) It isn't the heat doing the work: it's the work doing the work. Work is work, heat is heat, they are mutually exclusive.

As I stated above, the heat is working to create the steam, which then does the work, never once did I claim, nor intend to infer (and I apologize for being unclear in that point), that the heat itself was doing the actual "Work" work (physics definition work), of moving the piston, but the heat is actually being utilized in the system, therefore I claimed it as not being "wasted," like the combustion engine, which gives off heat as a byproduct that can not be used outside of the initial explosions causing piston movement.

Now comes the problem: you claimed, disastrously erroneously >_<, that "with a Steam Engine, there is no waste heat." This is wrong. As the thermally-expanded gas performs work on the system (i.e. pushes the pistons up), it is cooled by the comparatively cooler pistons. (The engine block in turn is cooled by the other parts of the machine and by the ambient air; this in turn is cooled by the remoter ambient air and the ground; etc, etc.) This cooling makes the water less kinetically energetic, i.e. it has less "punch" by which it pushes on the pistons, and the heat is lost irreversibly: into the engine it goes and then out into the great beyond. You want the water to get hot again? You better burn more fuel.

Poor semantics on my part is the case here, I was never intending to be taken entirely scientifically in my remarks.

Again, the heat from burning the fuel is used to make steam, which is then used for work, which then loses the heat it had which made the work possible. The heat was used in the system, and then lost, instead of being an unusable byproduct of the system. Further efficiency techniques can utilize the escaping heat to boil more water for more steam, which an internal combustion engine can not do.

That is all I was referring to, otherwise, you are entirely right, and I agree with you, and apologize for the miscommunication.

I'm sorry. "Particle"? Maybe you've been reading different physical chemistry texts than I have. I'm pretty sure we don't talk about "heat particles."

For lack of a better descriptor word at that moment. I don't talk of "heat particles" very much either, heat is energy.

For the sake of argument though, Photon = Energy? Energy = Heat? Photon = particle?

Maybe. The very notion of a small heat engine is under fire as we consider alternative ways of transforming energy source A into mechanical work B in small or mobile devices. These include electric motors (whose parent energy sources would doubtless come from large generators, many of which would be powered by nuclear-heated or coal-heated water, it's true) amongst other candidates. But yeah: I wouldn't hold your breath for Last Exile to come to life. It's looking much more likely that (a) we're going to continue to use chemical reactions for the next 50+ years and that (b) we're heading towards electric motors after that owing to their (surprise!) complete trivialization of the problem of energy lost as heat. For example, I'd like to see small steam engines do this.

I completely don't expect the "Last Exile to come to life either, they didn't even use steam, they used completely unexplained technology and fuel given them by the Guild.

It's clear the environmentalists would want to get us to adopt electric motors, and I have nothing against having them along with steam. I would just prefer we move back down the road to steam engines as a civilization. Wood makes a perfectly good solar battery for me.

Give steam engines a chance and I'm sure you'll get just as many improvements as other mass-used items have been. The only thing stopping it now, is presence and knowledge, no one thinks about using the steam engine, nor do they study it's workings, so they can only go to improving what they know instead. Obviously each engine has it's pros and cons, and portability may not be a pro for steam, ever, but I'm sure we can discover some good pros for it that haven't been found yet. And I completely believe it can be just as good as an IC engine for vehicles, if not more so.