Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:mjones-8EB2A5.23301327042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In article <Xns9645BAC3851DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [snip]
....
>
> ***{We can agree, then, that if the people who remain on Earth while you
> reside at L3 are not prone to act on bad ideas, your turtles will be
> safe. :-) --MJ}***

They should be as safe as they are now.

.....
>>
>> Unfortunately they are not accessable for use as fuels.
>
> ***{Reserves are defined as resources that can be extracted profitably.
> As technology advances, deposits that were not previously accessible
> become accessible, but do not yet become reserves. But then, when
> technology advances some more, that which was originally not accessible
> at all becomes accessible at a profit, and is added to existing
> reserves. (This was all discussed in the thread I referenced earlier.)
> --MJ}***

I read the thread.

>
>> http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000E9FDF-CBC1-1C71
>> - 9EB7809EC588F2D7
>> [quote]
>> there is not nearly enough fossil fuel to account for the atmospheric
>> oxygen inventory. But there is a lot more organic matter buried in the
>> crust in the form of finely disseminated particles incorporated in
>> shales and limestones.
>> [unquote]
>
> ***{Oil shales and tar sands, for more than a hundred years, were not
> considered part of reserves, because the material they contained could
> not be extracted at a profit. In recent years, however, new technologies
> have been developed that have converted vast stocks of previously
> submarginal deposits of such material into reserves, and there is every
> reason to expect that future technologies will continue to add to
> reserves in the same way. Bottom line: politicians, in the final
> analysis, are the only thing standing between the engineers and the oil.
> --MJ}***

There is a point where it takes more energy to get the fuel than is
recovered by burning the fuel.

Past this point, the recovery is only worth while if one wants the reduced
carbon for some other purpose, like making plastics, etc. BTW, that is what
we should be doing with it now, not burning it.

MOST of the remaining carbon on earth is not economical to recover. Not
because of dollar costs, but because of energy costs.

Once we start capturing comets, we won't need earths old carbon.

.....
>
>> [quote]
>> "Organic matter in shales is the dominant reduced carbon reservoir. The
>> earth's crust contains 1.1 x 1021 moles of reduced carbon--that is,
>> carbon that has been freed from its oxygen (one mole of an element is
>> equal to 6.02 x 1023 atoms of that substance).
>
> ***{The above numbers should be expressed as powers of 10, e.g., 10^21.
> --MJ}***

cut and paste lost the superscipting. You and I understand what the figures
mean. A look at the reference would have confirmed that the ^ got lost.

Have you noticed the e-mail address in my signature? I do understand a
little bit about chemistry.

.....
>> Just to keep things straight, the O2 in the air comes from Water, not
>> from CO2.
>
> ***{The basic form of photosynthesis is 6CO2 + 6H2O + solar energy -->
> C6H12O6 + 6O2. For our purposes, it makes no difference whether the 6
> O2's that are released come from the water or from the CO2. (Though,
> obviously, they can't all come from the H2O, because there aren't enough
> available from that source. If you don't believe me, count 'em.) Either
> way, 6 carbons are stored as fuel in the crust for every 6 O2's that
> are released into the air, and the ratio by weight is 12/32, as I stated
> earlier. --MJ}***
>
>> [quote from http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e24/24.htm]
>> ....photosynthesis [is] a redox reaction with H2X as the electron
>> donator (the oxydizable substance). In the case of green plants is it
>> H2O and this means that not the carbon dioxide but the water is broken
>> down. [unquote]
>
> ***{Not true and not relevant. --MJ}***

It IS true. Read the reference.
The relevance IS questionable. Once we start capturing comets, it won't
matter. We will have all the resources we can use in thousands of years.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Summation of Dr Olahs interview on Methanol
    ... Why can't methanol / ethanol / butanol also do this? ... if we had suitable fuel ... OTOH, if it were made from fossil fuels, I imagine carbon ... would be a problem even if you had viable sequestration technology, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Spam
    ... They're using our fuel, eating our food, competing with real Americans ... our side of the border that's sufficiently wide that no human or animal ... Carbon Emissions we are constantly bombarded by propaganda about, ... carbon credits for that dream vacation next year! ...
    (rec.boats.cruising)
  • Re: Scottish Power to be a winner!
    ... technology that could massively reduce carbon emissions and transform ... a long-term supporter of carbon capture ... Mr Salmond said that Scotland is well placed to lead the world in the ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Scottish Power to be a winner!
    ... SCOTLAND is on the cusp of leading the world in a revolution in energy ... technology that could massively reduce carbon emissions and transform ... a long-term supporter of carbon capture ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Scottish Power to be a winner!
    ... technology that could massively reduce carbon emissions and transform ... Europe could be safely stored under the North Sea. ... potential in carbon capture. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)