"cr88192" <cr88192@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6f21$4889b3aa$7937c448$16798@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> biofuels typically rely on solar anyways, but the volumes are more
limited
> (more fuel means bigger facility, ...).
>
> nuclear can be very productive and very cheap, but for whatever reason
many
> people are afraid of it (especially breeder reactors and likewise).
>
> China, India, and Japan use large amounts of nuclear power (uncluding
> breeder reactors) with no real problems. even the soviets only had a few
> problems, and they were pioneering many of these technologies, while
making
> use of minimal safety and poor workman****p.
>
> I still personally believe that nuclear is likely to be both the safest,
> cleanest, and most economical option, and we have enough nuclear fuel
(if
we
> include U-238, Plutonium, Thorium, ...) that there is no danger of
running
> out (only that many people in the US and Europe are afraid of anything
that
> isn't the ultra-rare U-235, which then they only burn a small amount of
it
> and try to discard the rest, in a show of pure inefficiency...).
Except for one thing, I agree.
> and most economical option,
That's typically coal. Most of what I've seen over the years places coal
as
cheaper than nuclear by a large margin. But, this link shows nuclear
being
fairly competitive with coal.
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
I just saw on a TV program that some university is work on a CO2 scrubber
for the atmosphere. Supposedly, the "green" groups are actually _opposed_
to such a solution... !?! The TV show claimed this was because "greens"
actually have another agenda: restricting people's lifestyles. Hype
backlash or truth?
> hydrogen though, would need to be stored in pressurized tanks.
Android... walking around with humans. Do you actually want _fuel_ of any
type on board? Until electron storage is adequate, I'd be thinking
compressed air which drives an electric generator through an escapement.
> also, as a detractor, electrolysis is not a very efficient way of
producing
> hydrogen (so, a better option may be needed).
Electrolysis of _what_ isn't a very efficient way of producing hydrogen?
I
know of two electrolysis methods for producing hydrogen: water and
chloralkali. They both use electricity. But, one is likely to be more
efficient than the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlor-alkali_process
Personally, I'd prefer that hydrogen should be the produced from some
"trapped" form of hydrogen, say as a component of dirt or rocks through
some
chemical process. Or, alternately, through genetically modified yeast,
amoeba, etc. Something we can kill easily and keep in tanks. We don't
want
little critters escaping and "polluting" the atmosphere with massive
amounts
of hydrogen... do we?
> for example, I had read before
> of someone pulling off higher-efficiency water cracking with microwaves,
so
> efficient production could be possible.
The article I read didn't say what frequency or energy levels used for
that... I'd guess that the energy requirements were larger than
electrolysis though. Microwaves are interesting in that they can be
directly converted to electricity. If you can find an efficient source
for
generating microwaves, you're in business... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna
Rod Pemberton
|
