OT Hydrogen economy, not?
amdx
I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
Conclusion:
According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
choice for carrying energy.
Mike
Jim Wilkins
>
> It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
> above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
> choice for carrying energy.
> Mike
It was a good idea until Bush backed it.
John Larkin
Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.
John
Tim Wescott
There's a lot of unclear thinking on the whole energy thing, both on the
'drill, burn and be happy' side and the 'save the earth through XXX' side.
Hydrogen, even if you could store and distribute it, is just a way to
carry energy around, and still needs to be produced. All the 'safe,
clean' hoo-haw becomes crap when you realize that the only viable way we
have now to _make_ hydrogen uses electricity that's been generated by
conventional means. _If_ the various electricity generation schemes
like wind and solar, that do well on average but are episodic, come on
line then hydrogen may help out -- but as you said, you still have to
figure out how to store and distribute it.
--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Neon John
>It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
>above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
>choice for carrying energy.
Of course all that is true. Hydrogen is a failure as an energy transport
medium. What it does extremely well is provide an excuse to pass out billions
in corporate and scientific welfare dollars, otherwise known as grants and
research contracts.
It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
soooo sexy.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Better remain silent and be thought a fool than to cite Wikipedia and remove all doubt.
TheM
This is all old news, but the media and politicians still haven't grasped
reality or are riding the hype until it wears out.
M
Spehro Pefhany
Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
something like that?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
>amdx wrote:
>> I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
>> waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
>> believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
>> http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
>> Conclusion:
>> According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
>> reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
>> good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
>> the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
>> hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
>>
>> It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
>> above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
>> choice for carrying energy.
>> Mike
>
>There's a lot of unclear thinking on the whole energy thing, both on the
>'drill, burn and be happy' side and the 'save the earth through XXX' side.
>
>Hydrogen, even if you could store and distribute it, is just a way to
>carry energy around, and still needs to be produced. All the 'safe,
>clean' hoo-haw becomes crap when you realize that the only viable way we
>have now to _make_ hydrogen uses electricity that's been generated by
>conventional means.
That's far too expensive. Hydrogen is created industrially from
natural gas.
> _If_ the various electricity generation schemes
>like wind and solar, that do well on average but are episodic, come on
>line then hydrogen may help out -- but as you said, you still have to
>figure out how to store and distribute it.
Calab
"amdx" <am...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:30176$487dece5$18d6b40c$3...@KNOLOGY.NET...
|
The big things with hydrogen are:
- The pollution is generated at the source (the power plant) instead of
where it's used (the car). This makes the pollution generated easier to
contain BEFORE it gets into the environment.
- Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE. No more group of countries
controlling the fuel economy.
- Hydrogen is simple to produce. This means that you can have many more
smaller hydrogen plants spread out to where the demand is, instead of one
single gasoline plant. This saves on transportation costs, and helps with
local economies.
At this point, cars based on fuel produced by electricity are the future.
Whether the fuel is electricity in a battery; hydrogen in a tank to power
combustion or power a fuel cell; or something completely different, it all
means that the vehicles are no longer producing the pollution.
Martin Griffith
Unburning water, what a silly idea
martin
James Arthur
How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.
Cheers,
James Arthur
TheM
> It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
> soooo sexy.
>
> John
COLD fusion.
M
James Arthur
No, hot. But cold doesn't work either.
Best regards,
James Arthur
Spehro Pefhany
Tastes good vs. less filling?
Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
Hot fusion definitely works, if you scale it up enough. ;-)
John Larkin
I considered calling the short-chain variants "Larkin Gas", but that
may not be ideal.
John
a7yvm1...@netzero.com
> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:21:15 -0700, John Larkin
Er, you do realize there's a difference between "hydrocarbon" and
"carbohydrate"?
The latter as the name suggests, contains water hydrating the carbons.
Like common table sugar, C12H22O11, there is always a 2:1 ratio of
hydrogen to oxygen. Hydrocarbons, like methane, CH4, don't need to
contain osygen and certainly don't have a 2:1 ratio of H to O.
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:43:44 +0200, "TheM" <DontNeedS...@test.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Neon John" <n...@never.com> wrote in messagenews:5r1s74t0jttvtguhr...@4ax.com...
> >> It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
> >> soooo sexy.
>
> >> John
>
> >COLD fusion.
>
> >M
>
> Hot fusion definitely works, if you scale it up enough. ;-)
A star is born!
But ITER is almost certainly going to be big enough to produce more
power than it consumes
and is intended to be a test-bed for the components of commercial
fusion power generators.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
I have an idea. Perhaps I should rush to the patent office before
someone beats me to it.
It turns out that most of Hydrogen's problems can be solved by bonding H
atoms to carbon atoms in various forms. The resulting molecules can be
produced in liquid form, thus simplifying the storage and transportation
issue. It also turns out that there are vast quantities of raw materials
buried underground that are easily converted to a suitable form for use
in power plants, vehicles, etc. obviating the need to produce vast
quantities of energy needed to produce these molecular forms from their
atomic components.
There are a few problems left to be worked out, such as how to dispose
of the 'carrier' carbon atoms properly. But these can be left for some
future person or persons to solve.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
bill....@ieee.org
As the report makes clear, if we wanted to use hydrogen to replace
liquid hydrocarbons (petrol/gasoline) we couldn't easily adapt the
cars, trucks and buses in which burn the fuel or the gas stations,
pipe-lines and tankers that we use to distribute it. We'd have to
think up a new system which would work with hydrogen - probably liquid
hydrogen stored in much bigger (and better insulated) tanks than the
report wants to think about.
This would dictate bigger vehicles - so we would get around in things
that looked like trains and trams, but they will be computer-
controlled and driverless, so there would be more frequent services on
heavily used routes and more flexible services - probably adapted to
the immediate individual demand - on less heavily travelled routes,
than we get with the current generation of public transport vehicles.
The authors won't win any awards for innovative or
imaginative.thinking.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Frank
>
> As the report makes clear, if we wanted to use hydrogen to replace
> liquid hydrocarbons (petrol/gasoline) we couldn't easily adapt the
> cars, trucks and buses in which burn the fuel or the gas stations,
> pipe-lines and tankers that we use to distribute it. We'd have to
> think up a new system which would work with hydrogen - probably liquid
> hydrogen stored in much bigger (and better insulated) tanks than the
> report wants to think about.
>
Hydrogen critical temperature nearly -400 deg. F.
I believe the hydrogen cars around use tanks at 5,000 psi.
You don't put your car in a garage, but park it in a bunker ;)
John Larkin
What's the energetics on that? I'm thinking that most of the energy we
get from gasoline, and especially methane, is from the hydrogen. You
lose a little energy breaking the c-h bonds, and lose a little more
breaking some of the o-o bonds, then make energy by oxidizing the
carbon and hydrogen.
Carbon is clearly a superior carrier for hydrogen.
John
Joerg
Has anyone every thought about some of the more mundane implications?
Such as insurance rates.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Tim Williams
news:en8s74l2krd4sf80d...@4ax.com...
> I considered calling the short-chain variants "Larkin Gas", but that
> may not be ideal.
Larkin Patented Gas, LPG? I think I can already buy that... ;-)
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
John Larkin
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>Frank wrote:
>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>
>>> As the report makes clear, if we wanted to use hydrogen to replace
>>> liquid hydrocarbons (petrol/gasoline) we couldn't easily adapt the
>>> cars, trucks and buses in which burn the fuel or the gas stations,
>>> pipe-lines and tankers that we use to distribute it. We'd have to
>>> think up a new system which would work with hydrogen - probably liquid
>>> hydrogen stored in much bigger (and better insulated) tanks than the
>>> report wants to think about.
>>>
>> http://www-safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/hydrogen.html
>> Hydrogen critical temperature nearly -400 deg. F.
>> I believe the hydrogen cars around use tanks at 5,000 psi.
>> You don't put your car in a garage, but park it in a bunker ;)
>
>
>Has anyone every thought about some of the more mundane implications?
>Such as insurance rates.
Hydrogen isn't especially dangerous. But it takes something like 30%
of the net energy content to compress it to a useful density, often
more than 5000 psi, as I recall.
Liquid hydrogen has the obvious boiloff problems, and takes energy to
liquify, too.
Pure hydrogen makes no sense, which is why so many environmentalists
and politicians love it. Nuclear makes sense, which is why they hate
it. See a pattern here?
John
Vaughn Simon
"Frank" <frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet> wrote in message
news:7NOdnbfgcII7oOPV...@comcast.com...
> Hydrogen critical temperature nearly -400 deg. F.
> I believe the hydrogen cars around use tanks at 5,000 psi.
> You don't put your car in a garage, but park it in a bunker ;)
I am no fan of hydrogen, but I doubt that hydrogen tankage in a vehicle
would prove to be any more dangerous than gasoline tankage. In fact, there
would be far more energy in the same size tank of gasoline, so therefore more
chance of mayhem when things go wrong.
Vaughn
Tim Williams
> What's the energetics on that? I'm thinking that most of the energy we
> get from gasoline, and especially methane, is from the hydrogen. You
> lose a little energy breaking the c-h bonds, and lose a little more
> breaking some of the o-o bonds, then make energy by oxidizing the
> carbon and hydrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
Molecule for molecule, H2 gives 286 kJ/mol, or 2 H2 gives 572 kJ/mol.
Carbon gives 393.5 kJ/mol, which is going to be per atom, but the form is
not specified (it takes a good bit of activation energy to burn graphite or
diamond). Methane, CH4, gives 889 kJ/mol (which is 76.5 kJ/mol less than
the sum of its parts, so evidently methane has 76.5 kJ/mol total, or 19.1
kJ/mol binding energy per C-H bond, relative to H2 bonding). Evidently
about 5/8ths of the energy of methane is from hydrogen. Carbon's still
pretty toasty though.
> Carbon is clearly a superior carrier for hydrogen.
Nitrogen would be even better, if it were possible to make ammonium hydride
([NH4+] [H-], a salt). Alas, four seems to be about as many hydrogens as
can be bonded onto anything (metal hydrides I think only manage a few
hydrogen atoms per metal atom).
Joerg
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:10:44 -0700, Joerg
> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> As the report makes clear, if we wanted to use hydrogen to replace
>>>> liquid hydrocarbons (petrol/gasoline) we couldn't easily adapt the
>>>> cars, trucks and buses in which burn the fuel or the gas stations,
>>>> pipe-lines and tankers that we use to distribute it. We'd have to
>>>> think up a new system which would work with hydrogen - probably liquid
>>>> hydrogen stored in much bigger (and better insulated) tanks than the
>>>> report wants to think about.
>>>>
>>> http://www-safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/hydrogen.html
>>> Hydrogen critical temperature nearly -400 deg. F.
>>> I believe the hydrogen cars around use tanks at 5,000 psi.
>>> You don't put your car in a garage, but park it in a bunker ;)
>>
>> Has anyone every thought about some of the more mundane implications?
>> Such as insurance rates.
>
> Hydrogen isn't especially dangerous. But it takes something like 30%
> of the net energy content to compress it to a useful density, often
> more than 5000 psi, as I recall.
>
It's the pressure that's a concern. Way back when in the Netherlands I
drove a propane-powered car on occasion and there were places where
these were not allowed to pass through and places where you weren't
allowed to park it.
> Liquid hydrogen has the obvious boiloff problems, and takes energy to
> liquify, too.
>
> Pure hydrogen makes no sense, which is why so many environmentalists
> and politicians love it. Nuclear makes sense, which is why they hate
> it. See a pattern here?
>
Yes :-(
But nuclear has one huge problem, the final storage. Throwing it all
into some underground cavity ain't so cool.
John Larkin
<tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:en8s74l2krd4sf80d...@4ax.com...
>> I considered calling the short-chain variants "Larkin Gas", but that
>> may not be ideal.
>
>Larkin Patented Gas, LPG? I think I can already buy that... ;-)
>
>Tim
Maybe I should call it ME-thane.
John
Jonathan Kirwan
><snip>
>Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
>way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.
Not only that, the carbon itself can be used. So 100% utilization of
the atoms for energy, too. That beautifully summarizes the problem
posed in replacing liquid hydrocarbons for individual use. There is
nothing better by way of energy per unit volume, energy per unit mass,
demonstrated large-scale safety, easy delivery and convenience, etc.
And much money has already been invested into a system that has
consistently worked to serve entire a civilization-scale system, too,
that doesn't need to be re-spent.
It's not going to be easy finding a replacement way of storing energy
that comes even somewhat close, Which makes the necessity of ceasing
the use of existing fossil fuels nearly impossible to achieve. Their
energy is essentially free. By itself, that alone makes holding off
nearly impossible. But just to make it even harder, the way much of
the energy is stored is just about as good as it gets in life. It's
compact and convenient, besides being free to the producers. Nothing
has any chance competing with that.
Jon
ehsjr
I don't think that will fly, these days. Carbon is politically
incorrect, apparently because it leaves footprints. Maybe if
you call it hydrogenated charcoal ? :-)
Ed
Tim Williams
>>Larkin Patented Gas, LPG? I think I can already buy that... ;-)
>
That reminds me, we've got beans in the house this week. Lovely stuff, you
take a can or two of Busch's Baked Beans, add onions, more bacon, and this
time, some jalapenos just to be interesting.
Joel Koltner
> Pure hydrogen makes no sense, which is why so many environmentalists
> and politicians love it. Nuclear makes sense, which is why they hate
> it. See a pattern here?
Liberals and Puritanicals have a lot in common.
It's apparently just human nature to worry about the downside of anything good
or fun or useful... especially now that the true needs of food, shelter, and
clothing have long since been met.
Hey John... on your downstairs "liquids only" toilet... if one wants a
below-street-level toilet that accepts all, um, "deposits," essentially do you
just have to have a sump that's really a small septic tank and keep it filled
with bacteria to break down the solids and just pump out the liquids when
they're through? Or is it just untenable?
Kris Krieger
3680ed...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 16, 8:58 am, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
>>
>> It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
>> above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
>> choice for carrying energy.
>>
> Mike
>
> It was a good idea until Bush backed it.
>
The ratonal qualities of an idea aren't altered by its proponents or
detractors - all that those change is one's *emotionally-colored
perception* of the idea's qualities.
Spehro Pefhany
We could call gasoline "oxygen-free soda water".
James Arthur
> James Arthur wrote:
>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
>>>> way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.
>>>> John
>>> Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
>>> something like that?
>>> Best regards,
>>> Spehro Pefhany
>>
>> How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.
>>
> Er, you do realize there's a difference between "hydrocarbon" and
> "carbohydrate"?
Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
Grins,
James Arthur
Don Klipstein
(in part)
>John Larkin wrote:
>> Pure hydrogen makes no sense, which is why so many environmentalists
>> and politicians love it. Nuclear makes sense, which is why they hate
>> it. See a pattern here?
>>
>
>Yes :-(
>
>But nuclear has one huge problem, the final storage. Throwing it all
>into some underground cavity ain't so cool.
The biggest obstance I have heard of to dumping it into a salt dome is
some requirement to monitor it. Probably required by antinuker
obstructionists who don't want the waste disposal issue solved.
Of course, if the waste was going someplace temporary, we need to
monitor it. But salt domes have an impressive rate of holding petroleum
for a couple hundred million years. Nuclear waste won't go much farther
if it's dry, and especially if it's vitrified.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
BobG
for potential use as liquid or gaseous transportation fuel, we should
analyze/discuss butane and/or butanol, which is a room temperature
liquid like gasoline, and doesnt have to be compressed like propane.
Any reason you couldnt pump a tank full of butanol into an E85 flex
fule vehicle?
Martin Griffith
Some facts and figures here
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/default.htm?TypeID=2&Item=15
look for Mar 04
martin
Trygve Lillefosse
>
> I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
>waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
>believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
> http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
>Conclusion:
>According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
>reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
>good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
>the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
>hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
>
>It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
>above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
>choice for carrying energy.
Hydrogen is a potential good way of transporting energy if a lot of
technical difficulties are solved first. It will take quite some time,
and by then we may have enough clean energy sources to make it viable.
It would enable us to use energy without thinking too much about
potential consequenses.
In the meantime, i think methane should be explored more. It is easy
to produce in large quantities, and it can be made from scrap. If you
take your average garden-cuttings and add a litle cow-manure, you got
the process running.
Methane can be made into methanol, with pretty much the same qualities
as ethanol. (Do not know if this is an energy intensive process
though.) or you may just compress it - add a litle prophane, and use
it in the same way as natural gas.
--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
Joerg
Says depending on the "carbon credits" nuclear may be free. I bet
that'll lead to some hissy fits among warmingists.
Joerg
We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an item
that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.
Trygve Lillefosse
<jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>Not only that, the carbon itself can be used. So 100% utilization of
>the atoms for energy, too. That beautifully summarizes the problem
>posed in replacing liquid hydrocarbons for individual use. There is
>nothing better by way of energy per unit volume, energy per unit mass,
>demonstrated large-scale safety, easy delivery and convenience, etc
You are correct in that hydrocarbons contain a lot of energy compared
to volume/weight. But remember that ICE engines do not get to use all
that potential energy for movement.
If you compare to electricity, or a source that produces electricity
efficiently, you get a better deal with a energy to weight/volume of
1/3. You also get other advantages, like smaller engine size/weight
and very low transmission-loss that gives even better figures. etc.
In other words, it is not the potential energy density that is most
interesting, but the desity of "usable energy".
Martin Griffith
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>> In article <Vcsfk.29753$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg wrote:
>We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an item
>that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.
He'll be out of office in November
martin
Martin Griffith
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
Carbon credits sound like a Big Monster (tm) Scam, full of truthyness
and dodgy dealing.
I bet a vitrifed haggis that less than 10% actually exist, and most
are just on paper, for bookeeping purposes and of course, for
<profit>
martin
Joerg
Or just start your own "foundation" and write yourself a check. That's
what some folks seem to do.
I'll pass on the haggis, looks to gross. Although some of the stuff we
eat looks even more gross but is delicious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labskaus
Its origin is British though.
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>> In article <Vcsfk.29753$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg wrote:
>>
>> (in part)
>>
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>>> Pure hydrogen makes no sense, which is why so many environmentalists
>>>> and politicians love it. Nuclear makes sense, which is why they hate
>>>> it. See a pattern here?
>>>>
>>> Yes :-(
>>>
>>> But nuclear has one huge problem, the final storage. Throwing it all
>>> into some underground cavity ain't so cool.
>>
>> The biggest obstance I have heard of to dumping it into a salt dome is
>> some requirement to monitor it. Probably required by antinuker
>> obstructionists who don't want the waste disposal issue solved.
>>
>> Of course, if the waste was going someplace temporary, we need to
>> monitor it. But salt domes have an impressive rate of holding petroleum
>> for a couple hundred million years. Nuclear waste won't go much farther
>> if it's dry, and especially if it's vitrified.
>>
>
>We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an item
>that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.
Once one is done adding waste to a particular salt dome, fill the mile
deep borehole into the salt dome with concrete. Once the concrete has
cured for a couple of days, it should be rather trivial to monitor for any
Bad Guys redrilling the the way into the salt dome.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Michael A. Terrell
This will upset some of the greenie weenies, too:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_New_Levy_plant_gets_approval_1607081.html
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
TheM
> TheM wrote:
>> "Neon John" <n...@never.com> wrote in message news:5r1s74t0jttvtguhr...@4ax.com...
>>> It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
>>> soooo sexy.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> COLD fusion.
>>
>> M
>
>
> No, hot. But cold doesn't work either.
>
> Best regards,
> James Arthur
Look at the sky, seems to work pretty well.
Can you show me example for cold?
M
Jonathan Kirwan
Always good to keep in mind.
But it does nothing about the issue that fossil fuels are essentially
free to the producers who only have to spend a quart getting a gallon
out of the ground, refining it, and delivering it on-site.
It's an impossible economic target to beat.
Jon
amdx
"BobG" <bobga...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120d0be9-db03-4922...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Yes Bob, butanol seems to have many advantages over the farm lobbies baby
ethanol. Ethanol production is a bad choice.
Seems like the best choice for a gasoline replacement.
Mike
Eeyore
amdx wrote:
> I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
> waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
> believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
> http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
> Conclusion:
> According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
> reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
> good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
> the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
> hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
All very true. Note especially hydrogen embrittlement.
> It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
> above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
> choice for carrying energy.
It's just a 'flavour of the month' thing.
Graham
John Larkin
<tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:9tjs745t71vdumq20...@4ax.com...
>>>Larkin Patented Gas, LPG? I think I can already buy that... ;-)
>>
>> Maybe I should call it ME-thane.
>
>That reminds me, we've got beans in the house this week. Lovely stuff, you
>take a can or two of Busch's Baked Beans, add onions, more bacon, and this
>time, some jalapenos just to be interesting.
>
>Tim
That's good, but we like to make our own, a huge potful at a time. You
can soak and drain the beans first and eliminate most side effects.
John
John Larkin
<ne...@lillefosse.NOSPAM.org> wrote:
OK, now include the batteries in your calculations.
John
James Arthur
The quote was about things we're spending billions
on that don't work. Don't, not can't.
By which Neon John could only have meant hot fusion,
not cold.
You erred in correcting him.
Speaking of 'don't,' have you a fusion reactor on
your keychain?
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
The bomb programs created immense amounts of really nasty stuff. The
super-hot US waste is mostly sitting in rusty tanks in Hanford WA, far
more than the US commercial nukes have produced, 10x by one estimate.
That's got to be disposed of some day.
Really, dig a hole and throw it in. Or dump it into an ocean
subduction zone. Waste disposal is just another wrench the antis use
to jam the machinery of civilization. See a pattern here?
The AVLIS laser separation program, which would have sorted out the
worst isotopes from used fuel rods, was cancelled.
John
John Larkin
Yes. Waste disposal from commercial reactors is not a technical
problem.
John
Eeyore
Neon John wrote:
> "amdx" <am...@knology.net> wrote:
>
> >It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
> >above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
> >choice for carrying energy.
>
> Of course all that is true. Hydrogen is a failure as an energy transport
> medium. What it does extremely well is provide an excuse to pass out billions
> in corporate and scientific welfare dollars, otherwise known as grants and
> research contracts.
>
> It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
> soooo sexy.
So True.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> But ITER is almost certainly going to be big enough to produce more
> power than it consumes
>
> http://www.iter.org/
>
> and is intended to be a test-bed for the components of commercial
> fusion power generators.
Will it work ?
Graham
krw
mart_in...@yah00.es says...
Leftist weenies are so cute. Stupid as bricks, but cute.
--
Keith
John Larkin
About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
John
krw
zapwireD...@yahoo.com says...
> "John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
> > Pure hydrogen makes no sense, which is why so many environmentalists
> > and politicians love it. Nuclear makes sense, which is why they hate
> > it. See a pattern here?
>
>
> It's apparently just human nature to worry about the downside of anything good
> or fun or useful... especially now that the true needs of food, shelter, and
> clothing have long since been met.
>
> Hey John... on your downstairs "liquids only" toilet... if one wants a
> below-street-level toilet that accepts all, um, "deposits," essentially do you
> just have to have a sump that's really a small septic tank and keep it filled
> with bacteria to break down the solids and just pump out the liquids when
> they're through? Or is it just untenable?
The local parks have "composting toilets". FWIG, they're only
emptied out ever few years and the results get spread as fertilizer
in the park. If the only problem is gravity, "grinder pumps" exist
for below grade bathrooms.
--
Keith
Kris Krieger
news:9becb$487e7597$18d6b40c$31...@KNOLOGY.NET:
Ethanlo from corn is not efficient, but I heard that switchgrass (_Panicum
virgatum_), which is native to the US and grows, well, like a weed, yields
a lot more sugar, and requires no fertilizer or irrigation (it is, after
all, a prarie Grass) (and some cultivars are also quite decorative ;) ).
It's just that there is no "Switchgrass Growers' Lobby" pushing for it.
That's what I read, anyway.
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
You claim to have genius-level IQ. You tell me.
JET seems to have done pretty much what was expected of it, so one
would imagine that ITER will too, but if the people who are doing the
work have opted to build yet another pre-production prototype before
going for a commercial-scale fusion reactor, it seems to be clear
enough that there are stil detailed esign questions to be answered.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Tim Wescott
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:24:29 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
> wrote:
>
>> amdx wrote:
>>> I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
>>> waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
>>> believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
>>> http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
>>> Conclusion:
>>> According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
>>> reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
>>> good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
>>> the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
>>> hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
>>>
>>> above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
>>> choice for carrying energy.
>> There's a lot of unclear thinking on the whole energy thing, both on the
>> 'drill, burn and be happy' side and the 'save the earth through XXX' side.
>>
>> Hydrogen, even if you could store and distribute it, is just a way to
>> carry energy around, and still needs to be produced. All the 'safe,
>> clean' hoo-haw becomes crap when you realize that the only viable way we
>> have now to _make_ hydrogen uses electricity that's been generated by
>> conventional means.
>
> That's far too expensive. Hydrogen is created industrially from
> natural gas.
>
WHAT? Boy, I haven't been paying attention.
Soo, instead of running our cars off of LNG, which is much easier to
store, transport, and use than hydrogen, we're going to burn some of it
to convert the rest into hydrogen, then stand around wondering how in
hell we're going to get it from point A to point B and what to do with
it once we get to point B?
Oh, sure. That makes sense.
So, how am I going to heat my house after we convert all the LNG into
hydrogen that we can't move, store or use?
--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Joel Koltner
news:MPG.22e850ea8...@news.individual.net...
> If the only problem is gravity, "grinder pumps" exist
> for below grade bathrooms.
Ah, makes perfect sense. Thanks.
bill....@ieee.org
> In article <haps741nfi53l31iqcoripv2avkl8eg...@4ax.com>,
> mart_in_med...@yah00.es says...
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:53:35 -0700, in sci.electronics.design Joerg
> > <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > >Don Klipstein wrote:
>
> > >We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an item
> > >that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.
>
> > He'll be out of office in November
>
> Leftist weenies are so cute. Stupid as bricks, but cute.
Rightist are sooo boring. All that brilliant intellectual capacity,
but no real data to work on, so the best they can do is truly
uninspred personal abuse. Not that Keith's theoretically brilliant
intellectual capacity - he is a rightist, so he must be clever, just
like Eeyore - has been obvious anywhere I've looked. Jim Thompson and
John Larkin can do brilliant electronics, and even Michael Terrell can
fix TV stations, but the best Keith can manage are lame patents for
IBM.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
James Arthur
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
> <bogus...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> a7yvm1...@netzero.com wrote:
>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
>>>>>> way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.
>>>>>> John
>>>>> Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
>>>>> something like that?
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Spehro Pefhany
>>>> How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.
>>>>
>>> Er, you do realize there's a difference between "hydrocarbon" and
>>> "carbohydrate"?
>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
>>
>>
>
> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
> ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
>
> John
Half a ton? Heck, that's burning chicken feed. No, really...it is
burning chicken feed.
Cheers,
James Arthur
Jim Yanik
> TheM wrote:
>> "Neon John" <n...@never.com> wrote in message
>> news:5r1s74t0jttvtguhr...@4ax.com...
>>> It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it
>>> just sounds soooo sexy.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> COLD fusion.
>>
>> M
>
>
> No, hot. But cold doesn't work either.
>
> Best regards,
> James Arthur
>
doesn't our SUN work on hot fusion? Ergo,it does work.
it's just that we have not found a way to do that on a smaller,more
practical scale on Earth.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Eeyore
Calab wrote:
> - Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE.
Pardon ? Where are the hydrogen wells ?
>
> - Hydrogen is simple to produce. This means that you can have many more
> smaller hydrogen plants spread out to where the demand is, instead of one
> single gasoline plant. This saves on transportation costs, and helps with
> local economies.
Uh ?
> At this point, cars based on fuel produced by electricity are the future.
> Whether the fuel is electricity in a battery; hydrogen in a tank to power
> combustion or power a fuel cell; or something completely different, it all
> means that the vehicles are no longer producing the pollution.
A whole flock of them flew over there !
Graham
Jim Yanik
news:7NOdnbfgcII7oOPV...@comcast.com:
> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>> As the report makes clear, if we wanted to use hydrogen to replace
>> liquid hydrocarbons (petrol/gasoline) we couldn't easily adapt the
>> cars, trucks and buses in which burn the fuel or the gas stations,
>> pipe-lines and tankers that we use to distribute it. We'd have to
>> think up a new system which would work with hydrogen - probably liquid
>> hydrogen stored in much bigger (and better insulated) tanks than the
>> report wants to think about.
>>
> http://www-safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/hydrogen.html
> Hydrogen critical temperature nearly -400 deg. F.
> I believe the hydrogen cars around use tanks at 5,000 psi.
> You don't put your car in a garage, but park it in a bunker ;)
I wonder how your home insurance would be affected by storing a large
quantity of high pressure hydrogen inside it?
Jim Yanik
news:Nmsfk.1259$_J5....@newsfe02.iad:
> "John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
> message news:9tjs745t71vdumq20...@4ax.com...
>>>Larkin Patented Gas, LPG? I think I can already buy that... ;-)
>>
>> Maybe I should call it ME-thane.
>
> That reminds me, we've got beans in the house this week. Lovely
> stuff, you take a can or two of Busch's Baked Beans, add onions, more
> bacon, and this time, some jalapenos just to be interesting.
>
> Tim
>
Bubbalou's Bodacious Barbecue in Orlando puts a lot of their leftover
choppings (the "crumbs") of smoked pork into their baked beans;best baked
beans I've ever had.
8-)
Jim Yanik
news:MPG.22e8500ef...@news.individual.net:
very obsessed,for certain.
Obsessed to the point of irrationality and blindness.
Jim Yanik
news:slrng7src...@manx.misty.com:
> In article <sdtfk.16526$89.1...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg wrote:
>>Don Klipstein wrote:
>>> In article <Vcsfk.29753$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (in part)
>>>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Pure hydrogen makes no sense, which is why so many
>>>>> environmentalists and politicians love it. Nuclear makes sense,
>>>>> which is why they hate it. See a pattern here?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes :-(
>>>>
>>>> But nuclear has one huge problem, the final storage. Throwing it
>>>> all into some underground cavity ain't so cool.
>>>
>>> The biggest obstance I have heard of to dumping it into a salt
>>> dome is
>>> some requirement to monitor it. Probably required by antinuker
>>> obstructionists who don't want the waste disposal issue solved.
>>>
>>> Of course, if the waste was going someplace temporary, we need to
>>> monitor it. But salt domes have an impressive rate of holding
>>> petroleum for a couple hundred million years. Nuclear waste won't
>>> go much farther if it's dry, and especially if it's vitrified.
>>>
>>
>>We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an
>>item that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.
Or the legitimate elements of society.
(it all depends on what KIND of nuclear waste.)
>
> Once one is done adding waste to a particular salt dome, fill the
> mile
> deep borehole into the salt dome with concrete. Once the concrete has
> cured for a couple of days, it should be rather trivial to monitor for
> any Bad Guys redrilling the the way into the salt dome.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
Heh,that drilling -might- be kinda noticeable.
Joerg
AFAIK the French have a really promising method at La Hague. Probably a
good thing to study it some more.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
TheM
> TheM wrote:
>> "James Arthur" <bogus...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:lOofk.354$kf4.269@trnddc03...
>>> TheM wrote:
>>>> "Neon John" <n...@never.com> wrote in message news:5r1s74t0jttvtguhr...@4ax.com...
>>>>> It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
>>>>> soooo sexy.
> The quote was about things we're spending billions
> on that don't work. Don't, not can't.
>
> By which Neon John could only have meant hot fusion,
> not cold.
Read again (above as well)
"It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds..."
Never mind, we are nitpicking. Lets hear the OP.
M
Jamie
> I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
> waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
> believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
> http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
> Conclusion:
> According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
> reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
> good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
> the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
> hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
>
> It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
> above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
> choice for carrying energy.
> Mike
>
>
>
>
Jonathan Kirwan
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_v...@charter.net> wrote:
>Working for the oil companies?
Probably. ;) They have all the easy-to-get hydrogen.
Jon
John Larkin
I have such a pump, a submersible with a bottom intake, rated to
gobble up solids. I'd just rather things be a little nicer next time I
have to replace it.
John
amdx
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_v...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Cpwfk.685$sc5...@newsfe06.iad...
No, they're working for me, I'm an owner. Well a part owner, oh, ok I own
some shares thru a mutual fund. :-)
I'm not sure if your asking me or questioning B&E. I will add I wrote
what's above the url, everything else is the conclusion from the webpage.
Are there any facts on the page you can dispute? I've sent one minor
correction and a suggested addition to the page author.
Mike
Paul E. Schoen
"Trygve Lillefosse" <ne...@lillefosse.NOSPAM.org> wrote in message
news:j7ns74h2hj9e8htja...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:58:05 -0500, "amdx" <am...@knology.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
>>waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me
>>to
>>believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
>> http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
>>Conclusion:
>>According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
>>reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
>>good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many
>>of
>>the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties
>>of
>>hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
>>
>>It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
>>above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
>>choice for carrying energy.
>
> technical difficulties are solved first. It will take quite some time,
> and by then we may have enough clean energy sources to make it viable.
> It would enable us to use energy without thinking too much about
> potential consequenses.
>
> In the meantime, i think methane should be explored more. It is easy
> to produce in large quantities, and it can be made from scrap. If you
> take your average garden-cuttings and add a litle cow-manure, you got
> the process running.
>
> Methane can be made into methanol, with pretty much the same qualities
> as ethanol. (Do not know if this is an energy intensive process
> though.) or you may just compress it - add a litle prophane, and use
> it in the same way as natural gas.
Methanol shows some promise for vehicle fuel, and can be made from waste
wood and other refuse. I think ethanol requires edible carbohydrates
(sugar), while methanol can be made from inedible cellulose. And methanol
is poisonous to humans, while ethanol has a long history of human
consumption. So it's a shame to waste foodstuffs such as corn to produce
another human consumable product, and then just burn it in an SUV that get
16 miles to a gallon, or two miles to the pint. Hell, I'd walk 2 miles for
a pint of high quality methanol!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol
Some other alternative motor fuels to consider are "woodgas"
http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainable...@sustainablelists.org/msg72797.html
and possibly external combustion (steam) engines that could use anything
that burns well enough to boil water (although there may be emissions
problems). But possibly something like powdered coal could be burned in an
efficient manner, with pollution controls.
Also, what about Calcium Carbide, which produces acetylene when mixed with
water. It can be produced from coke (carbon) and lime (Calcium Oxide), and
the production of acetylene also yields Calcium Hydroxide (which would have
to be dealt with as a waste product). I don't know if an engine could be
made to burn acetylene, however, and the emissions would still include CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylene
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114187750/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6553855
http://www.afuelsllc.com/move.htm
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/02/12/company-sees-bright-future-its-acetylene-investmen/
The real solution is to reduce our untenably high per capita demand for
energy, and learn to live, work, and do business in the most economical way
possible. Living in the suburbs and commuting 2-3 hours a day in a 7
passenger vehicle stuck in traffic is not efficient or healthy. Moving
freight cross-country on public highways on huge trucks is not safe or
efficient, when trains can perform this function many times more
efficiently on roadways they maintain themselves with much lower
environmental impact.
Paul
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> "Frank" <frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet> wrote in message
>
> news:7NOdnbfgcII7oOPV...@comcast.com...
>
> > Hydrogen critical temperature nearly -400 deg. F.
> > I believe the hydrogen cars around use tanks at 5,000 psi.
> > You don't put your car in a garage, but park it in a bunker ;)
>
> would prove to be any more dangerous than gasoline tankage. In fact, there
> would be far more energy in the same size tank of gasoline, so therefore more
> chance of mayhem when things go wrong.
Hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air over a much wider range
of fuel concentrations, so you chances of get a fuel-air explosion are
correspondingly higher than with gasoline/petrol.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Calab
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:487E8C61...@hotmail.com...
|
|
| Calab wrote:
|
| > - Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE.
|
| Pardon ? Where are the hydrogen wells ?
You don't need wells... You need pumps. The oceans have a great deal of
hydrogen in them waiting to be "cracked".
| > - Hydrogen is simple to produce. This means that you can have many more
| > smaller hydrogen plants spread out to where the demand is, instead of
one
| > single gasoline plant. This saves on transportation costs, and helps
with
| > local economies.
|
| Uh ?
A plant producing hydrogen does not need to be large or complicated, so it
can be scaled down to match the size of the economy. For example... How much
gasoline is produced in Hawii? None. A hydrogen plant could easily be placed
there and meet the needs of the population. How much in transporation costs
would that save? Now consider that with the volcanic activity, they could
use thermal power to generate the electricity needed to crack the hydrogen
from sea water.
| > At this point, cars based on fuel produced by electricity are the
future.
| > Whether the fuel is electricity in a battery; hydrogen in a tank to
power
| > combustion or power a fuel cell; or something completely different, it
all
| > means that the vehicles are no longer producing the pollution.
|
| A whole flock of them flew over there !
???
Anyhow... I'm not saying that hydrogen is the answer. I'm just saying that
it is feasable.
What we're really shooting for is a portable source of power that can be
produced cleanly. Solar, thermal and hydro electric production is clean and
renewable. That energy, put into use to create hydrogen or charge batteries
or some other method of generating portable power is vastly better in the
long run than depending on oil and gasoline.
Paul E. Schoen
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:467a0c5a-5afa-4f11...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
=====================================================================
However, the oxygen would have to get to the hydrogen, which would be
expanding very quickly if a rupture occured in a fuel tank. I have heard of
a test where cylinders of gasoline, propane, and hydrogen were put in a
firing range and armor-piercing tracer rounds were fired into each. The
gasoline tank burst into a huge fireball, the propane tank detonated, and
the hydrogen tank survived with a hole from which a hot bluish flame
appeared.
Paul
Clifford Heath
> doesn't our SUN work on hot fusion? Ergo,it does work.
> it's just that we have not found a way to do that on a smaller,more
> practical scale on Earth.
Too dangerous to do it on earth. Put it a safe distance away,
up in space, and send the power down as radiation to collector
panels... oh, wait... no need to. Just build the collectors.
James Arthur
> "James Arthur" wrote in message news:wovfk.391$kf4.365@trnddc03...
>> TheM wrote:
>>> "James Arthur" wrote in message news:lOofk.354$kf4.269@trnddc03...
>>>> TheM wrote:
>>>>> "Neon John" wrote in message news:5r1s74t0jttvtguhr...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
>>>>>> soooo sexy.
>
>> The quote was about things we're spending billions
>> on that don't work. Don't, not can't.
>>
>> By which Neon John could only have meant hot fusion,
>> not cold.
>
> Read again (above as well)
> "It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds..."
>
> Never mind, we are nitpicking. Lets hear the OP.
>
> M
Agreed.
Cheers!
James Arthur
Don Klipstein
in part:
>Also, what about Calcium Carbide, which produces acetylene when mixed with
>water. It can be produced from coke (carbon) and lime (Calcium Oxide), and
>the production of acetylene also yields Calcium Hydroxide (which would have
>to be dealt with as a waste product). I don't know if an engine could be
>made to burn acetylene, however, and the emissions would still include CO2.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylene
<SNIP from here>
Acetylene is very detonation-prone, probably *the* most detonation-prone
of the "common" hydrocarbons. They even say the pure gas is supposed to
not be compressed beyond 15 PSI above normal-seal-level-atmospheric.
I even heard that most-concentrated practical storage is dissolving it
in acetone (very flammable liquid) rather than just compressing it.
Possibly not true nowadays, but one should get the idea...
Acetylene ignites at lower temperatures than the other common
hydrocarbons do. I suspect that an IC engine using it would have to be a
diesel variant or have compression ratio so low as to cause severe
disadvantage, possibly both, if tendency to detonate can be worked around
at all.
If workable in an internal combustion engine, acetylene's very high
flame temperature favors more production of nitrogen oxides.
On a more positive note, ease of igniting acetylene makes workable spark
plugs easier. Further in that area, diesel engines traditionally do not
have spark plugs but have compression that achieves temperature sufficient
for ignition.
Keep in mind that acetylene has spark energy requirements for ignition
so much lower than those of propane, methane or even hydrogen that
acetylene may deserve to be considered static-sensitive.
This means severe caution to anyone making explosive noisemakers based
on acetylene, especially detonatable balloons filled from oxyacetylene
torches, and balloons filled with a mixture of air and acetylene may not
be far behind. I have heard of such noisemaker toys, and I would prepare
them where they are intended to be detonated (while wearing hearing
protection), especially if any weather station in my county or any
adjacent county reports relative humidity less than 98% or my hair was
shampoo-ed in the last 42 hours or I showered in past 36 hours or since
last major bike ride or I am wearing exposed clothes that I have worn
either less than 18 hours or only after my last bike ride working up a
major sweat.
>Moving freight cross-country on public highways on huge trucks is not
>safe or efficient, when trains can perform this function many times more
>efficiently on roadways they maintain themselves with much lower
>environmental impact.
That part I agree with. One obstacle is distance of too many freight
origin points and destination points from freight railroad tracks.
A lesser but possibly significant consideration is cost of railroad
labor - my impression is that union work rules have a stronger presence
throughout railroads than throughout trucking.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
I have seen anti-nukers saying, "God put us 93 million miles from His
closest nuclear reactor. He knew what He was doing." Or something
along these lines.
I also see that God permitted existence of scientists and engineers.
And that the people banished from / pushed-out-from the Garden of Eden are
permitted to do what they have to do in order to survive and continue
their existence on regions of the Earth and in regions of the Universe
more hostile than the Garden of Eden.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
bill....@ieee.org
> krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote innews:MPG.22e8500ef...@news.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > In article <haps741nfi53l31iqcoripv2avkl8eg...@4ax.com>,
> > mart_in_med...@yah00.es says...
> >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:53:35 -0700, in sci.electronics.design Joerg
> >> <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Don Klipstein wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an
> >> >item that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.
>
> >> He'll be out of office in November
>
> > Leftist weenies are so cute. Stupid as bricks, but cute.
>
> very obsessed,for certain.
> Obsessed to the point of irrationality and blindness.
Whereas Jim Yanik has a cool and rational enthusiasm for keeping guns
around the house.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Tim Williams
> If you compare to electricity, or a source that produces electricity
> efficiently,
Can you name one? Electrochemical methods are a tantalizing thought and
should give excellent efficiency. Unfortunately, practical fuel cells have
a number of drawbacks and the overall system is about as efficient as an ICE
anyway.
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Tim Williams
news:8sqdnVyr0p32FePV...@web-ster.com...
>>> ... All the 'safe, clean' hoo-haw becomes crap when you realize that the
>>> only viable way we have now to _make_ hydrogen uses electricity that's
>>> been generated by conventional means.
>>
>> That's far too expensive. Hydrogen is created industrially from
>> natural gas.
> WHAT? Boy, I haven't been paying attention.
Calm down Tim, he was referring to production. And, as you thoroughly point
out (snipped), it becomes something of a /reductio ad absurdum/, proving
that we should just burn mined hydrocarbons in the first place.
Tim Williams
news:95da6839-02bc-40ad...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Leftists are sooo boring. All that brilliant intellectual capacity,
> ^^^^ but no real data to work on, so the best they can do is truly
> uninspred personal abuse.
Notice my subtle rephrasing of your post (marked). Notice, also, that it
makes perfect sense, as if you were thinking of your own characteristics of
which to project onto your opponent. Uninspired, I'll have to agree!
Tim Williams
news:slrng7src...@manx.misty.com...
> Once one is done adding waste to a particular salt dome, fill the mile
> deep borehole into the salt dome with concrete. Once the concrete has
> cured for a couple of days, it should be rather trivial to monitor for any
> Bad Guys redrilling the the way into the salt dome.
Oh yeah, concrete surrounded by SALT -- that'll last a while! LOL!
Backfilling with, well, salt would work pretty well, I would think. And
there's no shortage of it around the mine site. Or sand, or dirt, or
whatever. If you still want to cap the last couple hundred feet with
concrete, that'd be fine too.
Tim Williams
Butanol is an excellent gasoline-ish choice, but sucks to produce.
Apparently bugs don't like the way it tastes -- where ethanol can get up to
10-20% before killing the stuff that made it, butanol only gets to 1-2%
tops, so I've read. Needless to say, it's an even bigger pain in the ass to
distill out all that water, when it's almost all water. And it's too
soluble (a couple percent IIRC) to just skim off the top, at least until
some more tolerant bugs are introduced (if even possible).
[1] Hank Hill. ;-)
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
"BobG" <bobga...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120d0be9-db03-4922...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> As long as we are vetting all the various length hydrocarbon chains
> for potential use as liquid or gaseous transportation fuel, we should
> analyze/discuss butane and/or butanol, which is a room temperature
> liquid like gasoline, and doesnt have to be compressed like propane.
> Any reason you couldnt pump a tank full of butanol into an E85 flex
> fule vehicle?
Trygve Lillefosse
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:59:27 +0200, Trygve Lillefosse
><ne...@lillefosse.NOSPAM.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:46:29 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
>><jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>Not only that, the carbon itself can be used. So 100% utilization of
>>>the atoms for energy, too. That beautifully summarizes the problem
>>>posed in replacing liquid hydrocarbons for individual use. There is
>>>nothing better by way of energy per unit volume, energy per unit mass,
>>>demonstrated large-scale safety, easy delivery and convenience, etc
>>
>>You are correct in that hydrocarbons contain a lot of energy compared
>>to volume/weight. But remember that ICE engines do not get to use all
>>that potential energy for movement.
>>
>>If you compare to electricity, or a source that produces electricity
>>efficiently, you get a better deal with a energy to weight/volume of
>>1/3. You also get other advantages, like smaller engine size/weight
>>and very low transmission-loss that gives even better figures. etc.
>>
>>In other words, it is not the potential energy density that is most
>>interesting, but the desity of "usable energy".
>
>OK, now include the batteries in your calculations.
In what way?
If you are thinking of the energy cost of producing batteries, they
are normaly recouped within 3-4 years. But then again, the battery
that are currently in use still have to low energy density.
My main point was that the ammount of energy a fuel contains may be
uninteresting if there are other energy sources/storage systems that
give more usable oooomp.
--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
Trygve Lillefosse
<tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
>"Trygve Lillefosse" <ne...@lillefosse.NOSPAM.org> wrote in message
>news:cmns741ebo1rllg38...@4ax.com...
>> If you compare to electricity, or a source that produces electricity
>> efficiently,
>
>Can you name one? Electrochemical methods are a tantalizing thought and
>should give excellent efficiency. Unfortunately, practical fuel cells have
>a number of drawbacks and the overall system is about as efficient as an ICE
>anyway.
At the moment hydrocarbons and battery-stored electricity are the main
possibilities. They both have their drawbacks, but when combined, you
get most of the best from both.
Fuel cells will hopefully become good enough, but it will still take
many years. But then again, if the cars of the future are serial
hybrids, you only need to change the petrol/diesel generator with a
fuelcell.
Trygve Lillefosse
It also raises at a speed of 22 m/s, instead of spreading along the
ground.
There are positive and negative sides with both gasoline and hydrogen,
but with hydrogen you have got the option of venting it away.
Neon John
>But ITER is almost certainly going to be big enough to produce more
>power than it consumes
>
>http://www.iter.org/
>
>and is intended to be a test-bed for the components of commercial
>fusion power generators.
Riiiiight. Hot fusion's just around the corner. Isn't that one of the three
great lies, along with "the check's in the mail" and "I promise I won't come
in your mouth".
I began hearing that lie long before I had any concept of what the other two
meant.
Now I am kinda fond of one certain kind of hot fusion. The kind that happens
in a few naoseconds and makes a big bright light and a thunderous boom. Every
time I try to hook a power line to that one, though, it seems like the cables
melt and the towers all fall down for miles around.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
There is room for all of God's creatures.... Right next to the mashed potatoes.
Neon John
>The big things with hydrogen are:
>
>- The pollution is generated at the source (the power plant) instead of
>where it's used (the car). This makes the pollution generated easier to
>contain BEFORE it gets into the environment.
No it isn't.
>
>- Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE. No more group of countries
>controlling the fuel economy.
Really? Can you tell me where I might dig some up? Firewood has gotten
expensive this year and I'd like to burn some hydrogen instead.
>
>- Hydrogen is simple to produce. This means that you can have many more
>smaller hydrogen plants spread out to where the demand is, instead of one
>single gasoline plant. This saves on transportation costs, and helps with
>local economies.
Is it now? Care to point to a plant that makes hydrogen from anything other
than natural gas, another limited resource? The electrolyzer that powers my
tiny little oxyhydrogen torch sure seems complicated and energy wasteful for
the amount of hydrogen it produces.
Please. Tell me you're a high school kid who's simply spouting what you've
been propagandized with. Surely you don't believe any of that stuff. Do you?
Really?
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Serenity: That feeling of knowing that your secretary will never tell either of your wives.
John Larkin
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Serenity: That feeling of knowing that your secretary will never tell
either of your wives.
Geez, you are a maniac, a total lunatic. I like that.
John