MagneGas: From Sewage to Fuel Tank
Uploader Comments (peakmoment)
All Comments (29)
-
problem number 1 you have to have electricity to make it
problem number 2 it's still producing co2
problem number 3 this problem has been solved renewable energy +electrolisis=hydrogen burn hydrogen you get h2o
this is a stupid idea -100 stars ): I
-
It also has some advantages over natural gas: it doesn't need conversion, just compression into high pressure tanks. It burns cleaner than natural gas, no CO and less CO2 and actually a little oxygen in the exhaust. Sounds funny but I've seen the actual exhaust reading.
It also makes a better cutting gas than acetylene less slag and doesn't need oxygen. Caterpillar has contracted to buy all they can make in the US.
-
No, the overall energy balance is positive in terms of fuel output vs. electricity input. What really "powers the process" in terms of providing the excess energy is the organic matter in the waste stream going in, which contains a lot of chemical energy. You could use some of the gas output to run a generator and power the thing and still get a lot of net fuel out.
I think this unit uses a 50 kva welding converter, not an awful lot of electricity for an industrial process.
-
Sounds great but this is just one option. In my channel I have a collection of videos that explain approximately 8 different s ways of effective and economic energy.
-
Still doesn't change the fact that he stole his research and claimed he invented it. Plasma arc technology in the manner santilli produces is not efficient at all, and he can't even build a simple device that doesn't 1) overheat uncontrollably 2). has a gas that smells worse then a babys butt, and his tanks will prove how clean it is on the inside, 3) builds SOPHISTICATED devices that look like a couple of monkeys put it together.
He never post a machine running and he doesn't produced numbers
-
You can use the same fuel to run this amall plant. It can run itself ,suppled by itself.
Well I'm not qualified to discuss this anyway.
The proof will be in the pudding - so-to-speak.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
But you raise exactly the right questions. It remains to be seen what the NET energy return is -- does it use more energy to produce than it delivers. It appears to be a fascinating use for wastewater. I also haven't seen any lab reports on pollutants the process may produce.
peakmoment 2 years ago
This doesn't address a central problem.
What is powering the process? Natural gas can be locally obtained from the ground and ignited to generate electricity. However, the transport of natural gas is very energy intensive because it requires conversion before shipping, special containers and then sending to special re-gassification plants.
MagneGas looks dependent on natural gas or some form of fuel to provide the electrical power for conversion.
There is no simple solution.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
The process requires a lot of electricity in the conversion stages (he uses an arc-welder to transform the waste water). That electricity must be powered by something, preferably local. But it would require a tremendous amount of electrical storage if not on the grid.
There is no simple solution.
peakmoment 2 years ago
He never really answered the question of how much electrical energy generates how much gas (BTU to BTU). This woman is the wrong kind of person for this interview. Perhaps the station was being politically correct; I'm not sure.
itisphoto 3 years ago
Ron replied privately that 100KWh produces 1600 std cu ft of liquid in 1 hour, equivalent to 8 gallons of gasoline energy (13KWH per gallon). As interviewer, this was one of my early conversations; I think I'm a bit better at asking technical questions since. There were no political or business agendas.
peakmoment 3 years ago