It also raises at a speed of 22 m/s, instead of spreading along the ground.
There are positive and negative sides with both gasoline and hydrogen, but with hydrogen you have got the option of venting it away.
-- SEE YA !!! Trygve Lillefosse AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
"Tim Williams" wrote in news:7rCfk.4813$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe03.iad:
salt doesn't harm the concrete,it attacks the iron REBAR inside it,causing it to rust,expand and crack and spall the concrete. (also allowing water to enter,freeze and spall it even more)
-- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
It rises even faster when it burns. If a tank of liquid hydrogen is breeched and burns, the fireball goes straight up. Nothing drips along the ground, and very little IR is radiated, so people nearby tend to survive. About 2/3 of the people aboard the Hindenburg survived.
John
Exactly. 13 years ago I decided to "git 'er done", and have been getting >95% of my home energy from sun and wind ever since. It wasn't even much of a challenge or expense. So what's your holdup? Other than spending so much time lecturing about what everyone else should do of course...
Wayne
So, what's your average power consumption now?
Most people who go wind/solar start by drastically reducing their energy needs. Once they do that, it makes sense to stay on the grid.
John
insurance rates.
Explosive mixture in air has a very wide range of compositions 4-74%. Slightest spark will ignite it too. 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
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. It also drives prices of grain up out of reach of the poorest.
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
| I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been | waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to | believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
If you are looking for ANY _ONE_ energy source to be the answer to energy independence, then you are seriously misguided.
The answer is a _combination_ of both energy sources and energy management.
No picking and choosing ... do it ALL.
|
The term "hydrogen economy" suggests to me that someone thinks it is _the_ solution for all (or at least transportation) based fuel. It would not be any such universal solution at all. BUT ... it could be a useful part of an overall plan, used in the special cases where it can work out, such as short-run commuting vehicles.
| It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the | above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad | choice for carrying energy.
It is a bad choice for expecting something to _entirely_ replace all carbon based fuels. But it has its uses in some areas. It is _one_ way to convert electricity (best if acquired by a non-polluting way) to a transportable form for certain short-run commuter vehicles.
The biggest mistake we can make is assuming _ANY_ energy technology can be a universal solution. NONE ever will be. We need to take _all_ approaches at the same time and let each application use what serves it best within the constraints of how much energy can be made available by that technology.
-- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
We go as low as ~8kWh for a single day occasionally in winter when the alternative is burning backup fuel, and as high as ~30kWh when we have both wind and sun in abundance. I don't have any way to definitely state an average, but I'd estimate it at about 14. It's varied over the years as VCR gave way to PVR and then MCPC, CRTs to LCDs, radio phone to radio DSL, etc.
Since I see that this is crossposted to s.e.d, I'll explain that the variation isn't much of an issue beyond convenience. Things like water pumping (to storage) are easily shiftable. Laundry, dishwashing and shop consumption are shiftable if sometimes inconvenient, and heat/AC is entirely optional in our climate. Our primary do-without item is hot water, we don't have any real fuel-powered backup for that. So after about 2 days without sun the water is lukewarm, and after 3 our choice is to use cold water or a kettle. But if we were in a climate where 3 days without sun was routine, then we'd add proper backup.
At our last on-grid place we averaged ~20kWh per day (also an all-electric home, ground source heat-pump, mild climate). So it wasn't very drastic to chop that with better insulation, lower energy consumption fridge, etc. Our lifestyle has improved considerably since then, much effective use of computers for example, yet we're doing it on less. And there's even more that we *could* do if we wanted, such as switching to laptops instead of desktops, or using smaller monitors or smaller TV etc. But everyone has their own comfort level and we've set up to supply ours.
That depends on your definition of "makes sense". If you really want to "git 'er done", then staying on the grid is only a solution *if* you're willing to invest in your own energy supply setup. But if you do that, you're in effect paying twice. Most people don't have the choice, but folks who are arrogant enough to lecture about what everyone else should be doing, and who brag that they have the money to do whatever they want, don't have any legitimate excuses for not "gitten 'er done".
Wayne
LMAO
to
of
Politicians don't need pesky facts getting in the way or their re-elections and if it wasn't for hypocrocy there wouldn't even be a Democrat party.
>
Leaving messes for future generations to clean up is how we got in the mess.
Nah, the "ate" ending means some of the hydrogen is already bound up with oxygen, so you wouldn't get as many calories per gram - you need a digestive system for that. ;-)
Cheers! Rich
Been reading this tread with great interest and the one thing I haven't seen mentioned is better utilization of the energy we have now!
Example...... why not strong incentives to properly orient housing divisions so that front of home facing south to capture heat gain in winter... trombe wall maybe? Plant deciduous trees out from to shade in summer?
I see so many HUGE homes built without ANY regard to working WITH mother earth but instead just making sure the front face the street!! Doh!
snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
ALL extremists are annoying.
I don't care which "side" they claim to be on - they *all* know nothing about how to discuss disagreements, only about how to be disagreeable.
Why not make REALLY TINY reactors, and just put them right in the cars?
Cheers! Rich
Just ask the Federal Government where they're storing all of the waste from all of the reactors they're now running - nuke subs, nuke aircraft carriers, nuke bomb factories, and so on?
Thanks, Rich
So, in other words, indistinguishable from the neocons.
Thanks, Rich
As a diabetic, the potential for a rise in refined sugar prices and a restriction in its availability, is not too alarming. But still there is that "Nutrasweet" and some other sugar substitutes have real sugar as a feed stock. I guess it could be said that the world, as a whole, can get along without it's main sweetener better than a major feed stock like corn and soy. The protein that the corn & soy eventually provides the world will keep people alive, the sugar?
Luck; Ken
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.