damage from ethanol?

Page 5 of 7  
wrote:

So what? More Good-paying jobs for US citizens,and a safe,reliable energy source.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And a country that's already trillions of dollars in debt has to cough up trillions more dollars to build the nukes and infrastructure. The money comes up front, present generations benefit and future generations get stuck with the bill. China already holds over 20% of US debt; if you stay this course, the communists will own America.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If it's so safe, why do they need protection from liability?
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not pushing hydrogen. But the other guy brought it up. My point was that there is no special relationship between hydrogen and nuclear versus hydrogen and other ways of making electricity.
AIUI, fuel cells are practically essential for spacecraft, because the byproducts are electricity and pure water. Solar cells are an alternative, but it seems they don't use them everywhere if I recall the pictures.
And in the city they are at least potentially useful because they don't make noise and they don't pollute (the pollution is made at the power plant, where perhaps it can be controlled better than at individual gas or ethanol engines. I expect sure ethanol makes some sort of pollution, no?)
And they are lighter than lead-acid batteries, or any rechargeable batteries I think.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote:

The point is the hydrogen is just an energy transport vehicle. So, if not nuclear, then where do you propose to get the energy from? Import more oil? Burn natural gas? Just use the oil or gas then and forget the hydrogen. Hydroelectric? All the easy sites are done, and there are serious environmental issues with any more sites. Nuclear is cost effective and readily deployable. That's why it makes the most sense as a source of energy to generate hydrogen.
(except that if cold fusion is ever developed, it will *use* hydrogen,

Sure you could burn coal, but how realistic is that? You've got lots of people running around saying that global warming is gonna kill us all. You think building more fossil fuel plants, especially coal fired ones that not only generate CO2 but other difficult to deal with pollutants, is a reasonable approach?
So, again, where is the energy going to come from for this pie in the sky hydrogen?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10 May 2006 11:00:09 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

For all the risks and costs of nuclear, it might be necessary if we're going to keep using electricity at the rate we do. According to Jeopardy, 20% of US electricity is made with nuclear now. (even though no new plants have opened in decades. There are 3 within 90 or 120 minutes of Baltimore.)
My objection was to your tying hydrogen closely to nuclear. It has no special relationship to nuclear.
(not counting hydrogen bombs and the possible possibilty of cold fusion (that is, a hydrogen bomb that's not a bomb and generates heat more slowly and at a lower temperature than a bomb.)
If you mean that you want to use nuclear and hydrogen is one way to store the energy, I have no objection, but it didn't sound that way in hte post that I answered
More below.

There are problems with every fuel. I'm not pushing coal (even though it is plentiful and not radioactive), only saying it is as related to hydrogen as is nuclear.
There is also coal slurry, which iirc solves some of the problems of coal, but has difficulties of its own. I don't remember the details.
There is also low sulfur versus high sulfer coal. I thought low-sulfur was pretty good, but I don't recall details.

Nor am I pushing hydrogen. It too has problems, mostly iiuc that you can only put so much of it in a pressure tank on a car.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote:

amount of radiation vented to the atmosphere from coal plants EXCEEDS normal annual radiation released from a nuclear plant!!!!
There is a very low level of radioactivity in coal. When you burn ALOT of it, the radiation gets released. Thorium and uranium are present in very nearly MINE ABLE quantities in the ash that gets trapped in the waste pile.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
This link explains some of the hazards of coal fired plants.
In the 1950s I lived near a town that processed lots of wood into paper and lumber products. Those processes needed LOTS of high pressure steam heat. The plants were in a valley in the mountains of North Carolina. Coal was the fuel of choice for these plants, HUGE piles of it were lying around on the ground surrounding the boilers. The stink was awful, you had to roll up the windows (no AC in cars those days), hold your breath and close your eyes (eyes burned)
Course those plants did not have fly ash precipitators on them and all coal power plants now have such, capturing over 99% of the ash before reaching the atmosphere.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you realize where much of that waste coal ash winds up? It's in most of the concrete that you buy today. A high percentage of concrete mix plants (ready mix plants) substitute coal ash (fly ash) for the cement in the mix. The amount of substitution varies anywhere from 15% to 25%, depending on where you are located in the U.S. This replacement of cement in concrete was pushed by the EPA and, for many industries, this substitution was required years ago. So, your highways, basement walls, sidewalks, driveways, etc. contain fly ash. The fly ash doesn't always provide any benefit to the concrete, but if the industries that were mandated to use it couldn't show that it specifically harmed the concrete in some way, they are required to use it.
It's also allowed for use as a soil amendment used to change the compaction characteristics of soil used for fill.
Harry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As you can see below, this was a reply to a post in this thread. Oddly, the post I replied to is no longer on the newsgroup.
No need to change the subject line...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote:

I can see where you would think I was directly linking them, because I do believe nuclear makes the most sense for the energy source to generate hydrogen.
One key reason is because it preserves hydrogen's zero green house gas emissions, which is one of the key points about hydrogen that it's proponents always proclaim. The problem is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere and you need a lot of it. Currently most of it is generated from natural gas, but that isn't a very viable solution, because the supply of natural gas is also constrained and the price is way up. If you go to coal, which is in abundance, then you have lots of CO2 emissions, which there isn't any viable way to eliminate, as well as other pollutants to deal with. So, if you want to generate hydrogen as a fuel for cars, nuclear seems to me to be the most workable solution.
The problem here that I think we agree on, is that there is no easy solution and no free lunch. Which is why I get annoyed when I see folks claiming all we need to do is use hydrogen, that it's plentiful because it's contained in water, it's all not happening because of some conspiracy, etc. Many do this out of ignorance, but some know better, but just want to ignore it, because they have their own agenda.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

FWIW:
GIGAWATT HOURS GENERATED, USA.         JANUARY, 2006        % coal ----------    168,997    51.96% liquid petrol--    4182    1.29% petrol-coke----    1876    0.58% nat-gas    ------- 41735    12.83% nuclear    ------- 71912    22.11% hydro ---------    27084    8.33% oth.renewable -    8355    2.57% wood ----------    3406    1.05% waste ---------    2,063    0.63% geothermal ----    1255    0.39% solar ---------    12    0.00% wind ----------    1619    0.50% pumped-storage -(-536)    (-0.16%) Other ---------    287    0.09% calc-total ----    332,247     Reported Tot --    325246    100.00%
This works out to an average of 325 Terrawatts-hours/month. (or, around 437,158,602 kilowatts, continuously.)
For comparison, the solar power density at earths orbital distance is around 1.4 kilowatts/meter.(1) So an orbiting solar plant, in full sun, with 100% conversion efficiency, only needs around 312 square kilometers of solar collector.
About half of the available energy hitting the top of the atmosphere makes it to the surface. About half the time, any given part of the planet is in darkness. Divide by 2 again to account for dawn/evening, and the fact that your solar plants aren't on the equator. Optomistically, current technology allows for around 20% conversion.
So 312 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 5 ~= 25,000 sq. km is needed to replace the current electric generating capacity of the US with solar.
That's certainly do-able. I mean, it's only a chunk of land the size of Macedonia. I'm pretty sure AOL has mailed out enough CDs to make the reflectors.. (or maybe maryland. Can we pave maryland? PLEASE????)
(1) Numbers from sources more than about a decade old will be around 10% less than this, the difference appears to be an increase in solar energy output.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pesonally, I hate making electricty with natural gas. I think gas should be saved for gas stoves. (it's a lot easier to send gas through those pipes than it is to send coal or plutonium.)

Cool. Close to 20 (and maybe for a period when oil-fuled generation was down because of Katrina.)

If we use too much geothermal, won't the inside of the earth cool off and the shell crack? Or something bad? How much is too much?

No.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I read a lot of belittling- and pretty damned inaccurate- comments re environmental concerns. I think these are very important, and I tend to find the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming and biodiversity, for example, more convincing than say, Michael Crichton and Rush Limbaugh. As some have noted, all that oil was produced via photosynthesis- the coal, too. Ought to give you some pause about being too cavalier with the conditions that make this planet biologically rich. We are living in an era of accelerating mass extinction of species- this means nothing to you? No, it isn't happening for some mysterious, indefineable reason- we're doing it. Good point about Brazilian ethanol's actual and potential impact on the Amazon. Renewable resources are renewable if used sustainably- wood is not very renewable if we clearcut every forest on earth to produce it- which is rather close to the current situation. Consider that the clean air most of us breath, clean water we drink, would be a lot dirtier if not for some of those who I hear being called crazies, wackos and obstructionists- they were called that then, too. This request- if you want to talk about crazy environmentalists- at least cite some actual people/ organizations- I certainly don't agree with all of them, all of the time- instead of simply being a "theysayer."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"and I tend to find the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming"
While irresponsible conduct by man may contribute slightly to global warming, a few million years ago, long before man started doing all these supposedly irresponsible things or was even here, there was a glacier 50 miles from where I live in East/Central Illinois. What happened to it? Global Warming. There is also constantly being found evidence of animal and plant species that vanished long before man started burning gasoline, coal, cutting trees, etc.
There have been commercials on TV lately by a Minister no less, saying we can stop global warming. Phooey, it will take a force far greater than mere man to do that, not to say we shouldn't do what we reasonably can to keep from accelerating it.
Walt Conner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually, for a mere couple of trillion dollars, we COULD stop global warming. You just have to launch a giant mylar sunshade into high-earth-orbit. SOmething like 2,000 miles square. Ok, maybe closer to a few dozen trillion. Call it 50. That's only around $7,000 per human.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even better. Think of as a battery, being charged by a <something>.
There are more energy efficient ways of producing hydrogen than electrolysis, but most have their own problems.
Back in the old days, it was done by reacting iron with sulphuric acid. Which'd be economically and environmentally unpleasant in the volumes we'd need. [I have a book from the 1900s that outlines exactly how to make your own man-rated airship including how to make the hydrogen too. By today's standards, really scary stuff.]
In the beginning of this century, naval ships carried tons of calcium hydride that they could convert to hydrogen (for observation blimps/balloons) simply by adding water.
But you have to produce the calcium hydride. It wouldn't be cheap.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It\'s not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

electricity. It is a more efficient way to distribute the energy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

barrow ( clean) spreading around the pool with shovel might of been a better idea, to bad I didn't think of that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I see lots of buses using it just fine. Maybe we just need to work on mass transit.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10 May 2006 05:28:59 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

No, we do hear about that but it is referred to as fuel cell research. I think we've been using it since the 60's in manned spacecraft to make electricity, and it has advantages in space, but like the other poster said, not in cars except for pollution issues. It transfers pollution issues to the power plant
Is

No. That's the other side of your statment below, that policitics is dirty, is let's blame politics even when it has nothing to do with it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.