- #36
TVP45
- 1,044
- 5
If you follow the stories about this burning seawater (or the cancer cure variant) demo, note the reporter's name.
Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.TVP45 said:Dr. Roy, the materials scientist from Penn State, has stated that, despite appearances, the water is not burning. Philip Ball of Nature puts it a little more plainly, "Water is not a fuel."
You can always check the tailpipe of your car and note that water comes out as a product of burning. Or visit any power plant and note the clouds (water vapor) formed by burning.
Astronuc said:Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.
You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.TVP45 said:Yes, you do see clouds over the coolers, but I was referring to the flue gases.
Astronuc said:You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.
russ_watters said:It all depends on the plant. Coal plants produce very little water vapor - gas turbine plants produce twice as much water as carbon dioxide.
edallen said:If the supposed new process is a method of extracting fuel rather than conversion of energy, then the process could conceptually have excess output.