Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- From: Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:56:32 GMT
In article <1171552814.835166.229980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Feb 15, 6:40 am, "bill" <ford_prefec...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The same with (only worse) nuclear energy: so much oil is
required to
produce and supply the nuclear fuel that if the government were not
subsidizing it for weapons production there would be no nuclear
electric generation.
This is totally false...very little energy is used to mine uranium
(and process) vs the amount of power one gets back. It has a higher
density of energy than coal (as does oil). Bill says the ratio is 4 to
1, I've seen a lot more than that if we are talking about energy from
fuel. Also, infrastructure is a lot less: lay down for coal at plants,
huge rail networks, pollution from mining (this is based on the fact
that there are 500 more coal mines for every unranium mind).
Nuclear power may be the cheapest way to produced hyrdrogen (via high
temp. electroysis and smaller high temp gas reactors) divised.
The fundamental issue with electrolysis that makes it NOT the
hydrogen production method of choice has nothing at all to do with
electrolysis. The best power plants (this only works with fossil
fuels) run at 60% efficient, then the electrolysizer runs at 90%.
That means that you're putting in 2 galons gasoline equivalent (GGE)
for every GGE you get back in the form of hydrogen. it's profitable
today only by dint of the cheapness of fosil fuels and the specialty
applications of high purity hydrogen. Thermal cracking is less
efficient in itself, but more efficient in the total process, so
therefore a smaller loss of energy in the process.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeah, I understand that. But, let's say it's 2 units of energy to
create 1 unit of H. That's a 'choice' that society can make. For
example, if it takes a $50 USD barrel of oil to make 1 gallon of H, it
would cost hundreds of dollars a gallon to make H. This obviously
would be prohibitive. But suppose you could get 15 gallons of H from
te 42 gallon barrel? Maybe that's cheap enough if society was will to
pay this amount.
My view is that the small high temp nuclear reactors might actually
*reduce* the ratio you lay out above to a more *acceptable* level. I'm
still not hot on H, I think that battery development will be the way
to go, so it's direct power plant-->into-->vehicle energy.
David
Same here - not that I have much technical knowledge on this:
I doubt H2 as an energy transmitter because of storage and
transportation problems. Electrolysis crating H2 and then this
convetrted to alcohol or of possible octane would be one
guess for future possiblity. And yes, some rally effective
batteries.
Meanwhile, there's plenty of cheap oil to be found and
extracted - the nuke-based stuff no doubt is the future
but certainly not "desperately" needed today.
With this I don't want to say that the anti-nuclear-energy
campaign in the world since now over 30 years back is
not an ENORMOUS crime.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf M.
.
- References:
- DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- From: gaedhealic
- Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- From: bill
- Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- From: gaedhealic
- Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- From: dave . walters
- Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- From: bill
- Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- From: dave . walters
- DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- Prev by Date: 181 turbine Wind plan approved
- Next by Date: Re: Nuclear Power consultation "a sham"
- Previous by thread: Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- Next by thread: Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|