Re: [Amc-list] Hydrogen power

[Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>]

>" Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx> said:
>
>me, actually


Oops, sorry...


>" >iirc they can only burn about -1%- of
>" >the nuclear load before the fuel rods must be yanked and discarded....
>" >
>" >more efficient approaches that have near-total consumption of the
>" >fissionable load, with safety 'baked in', are on the drawing boards.
>" >these even largely solve the disposal problem by leaving little or
>" >nothing but lead to dispose of.  


When my wife saw this discussion, the first thing out of her mouth was "great, we can send that to China to put in toys".


>a further note: if we could actually build these efficient nukes, we
>have enough uranium already refined to power our grid for the next 5
>centuries.


At current usage levels, sure.

You know, I read in a journal once that one thing that would eliminate about 30% of the nation's stationary power usage is to figure out a way to prevent transformers that are always 'plugged in' from drawing any power when the appliances they power are not on.  A lot of people don't realize that anything without a "hard switch" that actually disconnects the appliance from electric power altogether is **still drawing electricity off the grid!**


>" Some of that may be closer than you think.  With space elevators, the cost of getting things into space is actually not prohibitive.
>
>i've been following that, somewhat.  but siting the bulk of the
>industry on the moon would still be desireable - no problems with
>mining pollution, for example.  and we're starting to approach our
>dear planet's limits in population; there's enough resources in our
>solar system which would be accessible to space-based
>colonies/settlements to support some 3000 times our current 6 billion.
>that's elbow room!  though at historic growth rates, for a shockingly
>short time...


I'm thinkin a 69 Ambassador with a billion megawatt rocket engine, with space-rated body components, four on the floor...


>" Biodiesel is a good short-term alternative, but once again it has "cons" as well.  The vegetable oil has to come from somewhere; and for the same reason ethanol can't supply US fuel needs even if every square inch of arable land was planted with crops, there still wouldn't be enouh.
>
>true, although your estimates are based on food-crop productivity.
>better fuel crops are needed, and without food-oriented constraints!
>oil palms can produce 5x what the best temperate-zone food crops do, 2
>tons per acre, but only grow in tropical climates...  there's an
>african plant commonly planted on field borders in some places which
>produces a poisonous [to people] oil, but i don't know how productive
>it is or what its soil needs are.


I think for a plant-based fuel infrastructure, the solution is to grow in the oceans.  The main benefits there might simply be the fact that massive production wouldn't take up scarce land, unlike growing corn for ethanol.  There are a bunch of researchers trying to figure out how to profitably harvest plant oil from algae.  I think that's where the fuel revolution will start.


>and an important 'side effect' of large scale biodiesel production
>must be and is being addressed: glycerine production, about 1 lb per
>gallon of fuel.  there are industrial and cosmetic uses for glycerine,
>but biodiesel production could supply these markets 100 times over.
>can you really use 20 lb of soap -per-week-?!?


Heck, that means I'd have to make my annual bath (whether I need it or not) a thrice-daily thing, at least.

I'm sure people will find something to do with all that soap.  We'll all start washing our houses, yards, cars, etc every day.


>but it might turn out
>to be a good plastics feedstock.


Well, we're going to need something there too.  Transportation (cars, trucks, buses, trains, etc) supposedly consume only about 40% of the petrol we use annually.  The rest is power plants, plastics, manufacturing, etc.

In the meantime, the technology **is** available to reduce usage.  It just costs more than the current tech:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Intrepid_ESX

If every greenie would just plunk down $80k on Chrysler's lap and demanded to buy an ESX3, Chrysler and other companies would have immediately responded to the demand and *found* the technology to bring costs down.

Heck, those who had their panties in a twist about oil had the opportunity to do something about it long ago, but they refused: Even when low-tech cars with great fuel mileage have been offered by the domestic producers, greenies refused to buy them.  AMC had its 40 mpg Alliance.  The Chevette diesel in the 80's got an honest to goodness 50 mpg.  The 90's Geo Metro (OK, it was a captive import) got 53 mpg.  Even the mid-nineties Saturn SC models would get above 40 mpg with a 5 speed.  None of these cars sold in great numbers.  But then Toyata brings out the Prius and suddenly the noses go up into the air and mileage becomes fashionable for the well-heeled left.

-- Marc



_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list