Re: Using nuclear power to make renewables and a hydrogen economy cost effective

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.usa)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 22:56:49 -0400

charliew2 wrote:
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>> charliew2 wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Again, Dave, I think you're wasting your time here. Ian is probably
>>> not going to understand that the efficiency is strictly dependent on
>>> the source and sink temperatures, and has nothing to do with heat
>>> exchange, unless that heat exchange is actually a heat leak to the
>>> environment.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
>>>> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
>>>> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
>>
>> A more correct statment would be that the BEST POSSIBLE efficiency is
>> strictly ....
>
> Agreed. I thought of this, but wasn't quite as forceful in stating
> it.
>
>>
>> The rest of the efficiency is crucially dependent on heatsink
>> characteristics.
>> It is trivially easy to get most of the delta-T drops across the
>> input and output thermal interfaces, leaving absolutely nothing (and
>> often LESS) for Carnot to work with.
>>
>> Especially with low delta-T schemes.
>>
>> For instance, it is trivial to build a Peltier cooler with a 20
>> degree drop across itself and a 40 degree rise across its heatsinks.
>
> Can you give me a link that has a good example of the low delta-T
> schemes? I'm not familiar with a Peltier cooler, and a picture would
> help enormously.

You are all a bunch of idiots. The POINT is that the 'efficiency' is
meaningless as an economic argument. The arguments against hydrogen all
revolve around some sort of rube goldberg scheme to make hydrogen production
ineffecient. This is bogus as can be seen with nuclear which is inherently
inefficient in the current designs. The COST is what drives the use of
nuclear. Even with low efficiency, the comparative low cost of the fuel
makes it a winner compared to fossil fuels.

Most likely, the hydrogen will be generated from steam reforming of coal
with sequestration of the resulting hot and compressed CO2 stream. This
would produce 'clean energy' hydrogen/electrcity cogeneration. The
intermittent sources of power would also produce hydrogen as a sort of
'universal energy carrier' for storage to avoid having too many separate and
incompatible systems.

Either get a clue or get a room, ok? Never seen such a group of *** monkeys
all over each other.

Quantcast