snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:
Or the legitimate elements of society. (it all depends on what KIND of nuclear waste.)
Heh,that drilling -might- be kinda noticeable.
-- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
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.
Probably. ;) They have all the easy-to-get hydrogen.
Jon
Working for the oil companies?
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
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
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!Some other alternative motor fuels to consider are "woodgas"
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.
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
ehicle
here
more
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
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.
=====================================================================
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
In , Paul E. Schoen wrote in part:
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.
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 ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
individual.net:
Whereas Jim Yanik has a cool and rational enthusiasm for keeping guns around the house.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
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
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
-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
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
-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
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
-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Butane is a bastard gas[1]. ;-)
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:
Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else comes close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land. People are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the farmers job.
I am in full agreement with you there.
Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one off the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from grain including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about 10-20% return if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI and still with scope for improvement.
Regards, Martin Brown
** Posted from
Explosive mixture in air has a very wide range of compositions 4-74%. You cannot even park it in a bunker unless it is well ventilated.
Hydrogen at high pressure will diffuse through steel. And worst of all a pure hydrogen flame is almost invisible in daylight (this is good in one sense in that it doesn't radiatively couple). Fire fighters in a hydrogen risk environment have to be extremely careful since even the tiniest static electricity spark will ignite a leak.
Failsafe systems are designed to vent flare the hydrogen upwards in the event of a failure - which is fine unless you have rolled the car over. Then the flame burns whatever it touches and becomes optically dense.
ISTR There are two or three demonstration busses in London running on hydrogen. I recall seeing one at an exhibition.
It is basically only any good as rocket fuel (and even there its very low boiling point and explosive mix range make it tricky to handle). ISTR LOX/LH2 still hold the record for specific impulse.
Nuclear fission at the moment is the only technology we have that can compete with fossil fuel as a replacement major power source. That may change if we get working fusion reactors to scale up but for the moment there isn't a lot of choice. Saving energy is still an option though.
It is hard to justify cars that do anything less than an average 40mpg. Average of >50mpg is possible for a modern saloon car.
Regards, Martin Brown
** Posted from
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
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.
-- SEE YA !!! Trygve Lillefosse AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.