Talk:Blue energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This environment-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

--Alex 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The numbers in this paragraph in the article are not consistent (and the inconsistencies are significant):

"In the Netherlands, for example, more than 3,000 m³ fresh water runs into the sea per second on the average. Theoretically the output is 2.5 MJ or 0.5 kWh/m³. This corresponds to about 3,000 MW, ..."

1 Watt (W) is defined as 1 Joule (J) per second. Thus, 1 kWh is 3.6 MJ (Megajoules). 0.5 kWh (kilowatt-hour) is exactly 1.8 MJ, rather a long way from 2.5 MJ. And, 1.8 MJ/m³ X 3000 m³ / second = 5400 MJ / second = 5400 MW; using the 2.5 MJ/m³ figure would give an even larger 7500 MW figure.

As I don't know what the original source for this information was (I didn't see these numbers in the references listed), I'm not in a position to know which (if any) of the numbers in the main article was/were correct; so, I have not edited the main article.

Source: in Dutch [[1]] Exactly its 3300 m3/sec fresh water and 2,5MJ(or 0,5 Kwh pro M3. reg Mion 09:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC) energiepotential max is 3300 MW, if you calculate on 1 MW pro m3 fresh water /sec. 13.200 containers should do. Mion 09:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is the theoratical output minus 30 or 40 % to get the system on a 60 % efficiency. The expected efficiency in the future,

1 from the frontpage
2 Fuel cell or not
3 == Blue energy ==
4 Size

[edit] from the frontpage

In the Netherlands, for example, more than 3,000 m³ fresh water runs into the sea per second on the average. Theoretically the output is 2.5 MJ or 0.5 kWh/m³. This corresponds to about 3,000 MW, which is about one-third of the national electricity consumption (2005).

[edit] Fuel cell or not

The question is what is the definition of a fuel cell ? is a unit with in the middle a membrane an anode or a kathode in each of the compartiments to create an electrical output a fuel cell ? (like in the EN version of the article) Mion 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mion, asking this question, and giving a wrong answer, only raises my fears that your efforts on Hydrogen technologies are a potential damage to Wikipedia.

A fuel cell is a an electrochemical cell burning (i.e. oxidizing) fuel.

Pjacobi 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Internet definition : A Static device that converts the chemical energy through an electrochemical process. Thats sounds better, lets try to find another one.Mion 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition of: fuel cell

A pollution-free electricity generation technology that is expected to compete with traditional methods of creating and distributing electricity. It is also expected to be used in electrically powered cars, trucks and buses. On-the-road testing began with prototype vehicles at the end of the 20th century. Self-contained fuel cell systems are also expected to power individual homes within 20 years. [[2]]

Burning of the fuel isn't required. Mion 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:V and WP:RS please use reliable sources. For articles on topics of science and engineering this are text books used at universities and other books by scholars in the field and publications in peer-reviewed journals. For easy stuff, the summary that governments agency and other educations site provide, aren't bad either. Please have a look at:

*http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html

Haha, yes i know and you a are right about reliable sources if you take a reference dictionary its normally, the Duden or Oxford, i took the Chemical dictionary, my point of view is that the dictionaries are not up to date with the definition, progress in technologies are the reason. Mion 08:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Our own article fuel cell isn't bad either. Did you read it?

Pjacobi 07:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And did i read fuel cells ? have a look at the edits on it. Mion 08:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(start on 7 April 2006 )Mion 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This definition is wrong in itself: http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html Basics

A fuel cell uses the chemical energy of hydrogen to cleanly and efficiently produce electricity, with water and heat as by products. (How much water?) Fuel cells are unique in terms of the variety of their potential applications; they can provide energy for systems as large as a utility power station and as small as a laptop computer.

Not all fuel cells are hydrogen fuel cells. reg. Mion 08:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all fuel cell are hydrogen fuel cells but all fuel cells work by oxidizing. Osmosis cells aren't fuel cells.

Wrong: fuel cell

 • noun a cell producing an electric current direct from a chemical reaction.

Oxford dictionary: [[3]]

Dictionaries and other encyclopedias are typically not valid sources for an encyclopedia.

Dictionaries are NOT encyclopedias, and dictionaries are even referenced on in Law.Mion 09:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sady, I know of several cases, where editing an article didn't imply that the article was read.

Pjacobi 09:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which in this case was not the case.Mion 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the defintion in the OED is obviously wrong. --Pjacobi 09:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets turn it around Per WP:V and WP:RS , where is your reference for this statement? Mion 09:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Considder the fact that you migh be wrong ? Mion 09:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, even the OED defintion, which is much too broad, doesn't group the "Blue energy" cell as fuel cell, as no chemical reaction is occuring in an osmosis cell. --Pjacobi 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

read the article in english, is exchanging ions between two fluids a chemical reaction ? Mion 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No. --Pjacobi 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NO ? ION EXCHANGE CHEMISTRY AND OPERATION Ion exchange is a reversible chemical reaction wherein an ion (an atom or molecule that has lost or gained an electron and thus acquired an electrical ...[[4]]. Mion 12:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You got it wrong. What you are citing has no direct relation to osmosis, which is a purely physical process. In osmosis the ions don't lose or gain an electron.

As already said: Taking your unfamiliarity with basic facts of chemistry as a measure, you shouldn't be too bold in editing articles on chemistry.

--Pjacobi 13:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Like i said, read the article, its main part is about reverse electro dialysis not osmosis.Mion 13:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

electro dialysis isn't a chemical reaction either. --Pjacobi 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

its reverse electro dialysis, not electro dialysis.Mion 13:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Heck, this obviously apply to both normal and reverse electrodialysis! If a process doesn't involve a chemical reaction, It should be quite clear, that the same holds of the reverse process. --Pjacobi 13:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gents, I have been asked to give some opinions regarding your stalemate in discussion. I am not an expert in Hydrogen but I have a good grounding in Biology and Environmental Science. Blue energy did not strike me immediately as a topic which is a standard fuel cell, more like a related one. Mion has been working very hard on the Hydrogen category and I do not believe comments like "that your efforts on Hydrogen technologies are a potential damage to Wikipedia" are constructive or in harmony with the concept of Wikilove.

I am well aware of osmosis from my bio background and is related to diffusion across a membrane, which I would not generally have considered to be a chemical reaction.

It would appear to me, without getting involved in the technicalities of definition however, there are a number of similarities to fuel cells. I would suggest that Blue energy is a closely related subject but not a fuel cell in its strictest sense. Alex 11:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks, restoring original definition of fuel cell is done, Mion 13:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of "not a fuel cell" in that opinion did you not understand? Related technologies are being discussed in appropriate places. There is no reason that the term "fuel cell" need be hijacked by these technologies. Consensus is clearly against you on this. Chris Cunningham 14:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats was to hasty, on 09:54, 11 September 2006 i changed the definition of fuel cell trying to include Blue energy and similar into it, consensus on this page states 2 against redefining. so i restored the definition back to its original state.

Now by reverted it again you are restoring it to its incorrect version. Mion 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm an idiot. Sorry about that. Restored now. Chris Cunningham 14:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, for giving your opinion. --Pjacobi 13:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome! Glad I helped--Alex 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC) And stop being grumpy you lot!--Alex 15:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Blue energy ==

can someone have a look at Blue Energy Tidal power [[5]]. ? "The vertical axis turbine technology, which has been around since the 1920's, but held back for political reasons,?" However, i would like an advise on the statements made by this CA company, question is related to the naming of the article Blue energy. thanks. Mion 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

hmgmhcvnfjgjgjhg ggnjdfhgdhkdnhkdgjdfn bgdfbhjghk hgfhhjhgzhgkfgutgruihgjhndfnfnb fdhgnvb gvxdfhjgfnbvj jhnfngdfhgjhyniughlghdf gfjhgntghjgjgdfjbgdfjgnh fgggyhngvdrjkbvj hgsdxvcastjrweguygr gfvwegfw fwefyif.cv ;efhgfcv;'dedfvgb uhsdui hfuheifewf ejjfnf