Methane Hydrate - Very Cheap Fuel

Flood them and they hydraulic quickly . Nev

Flood them and they hydraulic quickly . Nev

Done that, then when you turn the compression tap to a certain point the kicked and the prop made your knuckles bleed.

These days I've got a big glow plug engine running on part nitromethane.

No prop flicking, I have a battery powered prop rotator so you can adjust the engine into tune until it starts.

Once China works out how to run their power stations on the stuff - Oz coal is stuffed.

 

Japan is the big buyer of Australian power coal though they also have a methane hydrate project going.

 

No more coal money to Oz..........

 

 

 

 

.

That's a given anyway. Needn't be a problem if we got smart and thought about the future...

My first engine was a 1.5cc burford diesel. The commercial fuel ( Aeroflite ) was low in ether to begin with, and the ether evaporated faster than the kero and oil. This made the engine impossible to start. Of course we didn't know any of this at the time.

A mate of mine tried to start his every day after school for months. Mine started easier because my dad begged some ether from where he worked and so I mixed my own fuel. My mate got his going on this fuel too. Golly he had a good flick after all those months of practice.

In later years, methanol based fuel in glo engines was all the go. Now, electric is what I fly, mainly because it doesn't dirty your plane with oil.

That's a given anyway. Needn't be a problem if we got smart and thought about the future...

Yep!

If we were smart, instead of blocking new mines, we would be shipping as much of the stuff as we can right now to bring in that export income before the ‘spring’ drys up...?

.

Sell now at low prices !.

Isn,t that were our CNG is going ( for a song ) cheaply to China.

spacesailor

Something I don't understand: Why not use wind and solar to electrolize water and use the products to make fuel? The intermittent nature of the energy would not matter as the product is stored. It must be the economics of capital expended vs income stream, but I don't personally see the problem.

Something I don't understand: Why not use wind and solar to electrolize water and use the products to make fuel? The intermittent nature of the energy would not matter as the product is stored. It must be the economics of capital expended vs income stream, but I don't personally see the problem.

I think it's just a very slow process; by the time you scale it up to match hydrogen demand you are looking at a big, stationary installation.

Yep!

 

If we were smart, instead of blocking new mines, we would be shipping as much of the stuff as we can right now to bring in that export income before the ‘spring’ drys up...?

 

 

 

 

 

.

Yeah! And we can do that with asbestos too! Let's flog it off while we can!

Or we can be actually smart and think about what we're going to do when demand dies off for coal...

Using solar to make hydrogen from water using solar is good. It just needs an excessive amount of solar cells. One solar sell on a sunny day will produce enough energy to drive a Tesla 4km. With the losses of manufacturing hydrogen it would travel significantly less.

You’re right on the money there. You can pretty much decide whether a fuel is viable by looking at its law per cubic metre performance for vehicles or aircraft. In this case a lot more cubic metres has to be burned for about 15% less power than ICE. The golden era so far for this gas was the late 1980s. The transport industry solved the volume problem by compressing it to 2000 psi and making huge tanks from fibreglass rovings and resin. In that era for some reason people didn’t like calling gases by their real name in the transport industry and it was called CNG, Compressed Natiral Gas. The tanks would be too big and heavy for aircraft. Benders Buslines in Geelong had 105 buses on CNG. All the truck trials failed and Benders reverted to diesel.Within 10 years it was all over. Currently works in gas-fires power stations.

Same problem with Hydrogen, the tanks would have to be huge and heavy, not viable for aircraft

Methane gas in reciprocating combustion engines have another problem. For a given cubic capacity and compression ratio the brake horsepower is significantly lower. As the flame velocity is quite low pre-ignition is not a usual problem. Hydrogen on the other hand has a flame velocity 10 times that of methane. Hydrogen makes a better bomb lol.

The price of All these new fuels will have to compete with our REDUCED fuel price of under the dollar a litre.

When the push comes th shove, will those oil companies give away their profits to the new interloper,

WETHER It,s LPG, CNG, HYDROGEN OR ANY NEW FUEL.

spacesailor