Living in an area of Canada which with a population of about a half
million where 90%+ of electrcity is generated by water power.
Also somewhat unique in that a significant portion of our territory is
not presently connected to the North American grid system; although it
will be one day by undersea cables.
Also within the territory is the existing Churchill Falls and the
proposed Lower Churchill project. Both of these either currently do or
will export relatively nonpolluting power via other Canadian provinces
to US states such as New York, Michigan etc.
Despite the small population we are blessed with relatively reasonable
Home heating here, especially since the increase in in oil costs, is
mainly by electricity; with some heat pump installations. An average
daily consumption for this almost 40 year old, stick built, all
electric four bedroom house (in a fairly windy and cold location near
the North Atlantic) is about 50 to 75 k.watt hours per day. Very few
people need or install AC.
Ok, I agree with you. I so totally agree with you. So are you, or
anyone, ready to start building the 1st commercial fusion power plant?
Well, are you? (Yes, I know, trick sarcastic question; don't take it
Back in 1979 I had a part time work-study job in college with a research
effort into how to produce controlled fusion reaction heat to make steam
which would have been useful in generating electrical power. (I was a
employed as an unlicensed electrician and circuit board assembler.)
By my count 30 years have passed and not even a demo fusion power plant
is on line with 6 months continuous operation. No question: lots and
lots of scientific papers and PhD thesis have been written and published
on fusion energy to power electrical generation, but no demo power plant.
IIRC, the length of time a sustained controlled fusion reaction has been
sustained is less than a few seconds.
Call us when that sustained reaction reaches, oh let's say about the time
it takes to drink a mug of coffee. Then we can put controlled fusion
reaction back on the table; it is after all the future energy source.
Future, not today or next year, or my life-time.
There are many things that "burn" that are not a combustion reaction
involving carbon and hydrogen to form water and CO2 (and possibly CO).
Covalent compounds that don't contain hydrogen or carbon will burn without
forming CO. Likewise with organic salts. There are also several metals that
will burn without forming CO in addition to magnesium. And of course
hydrogen and oxygen will "burn" and form water. I don't think that any of
these are viable sources of energy except hydrogen/oxygen. Considering the
cost of producing hydrogen, I would not consider that a viable source of
Fossil fuels work good because the energy they release came from the sun
millions of years ago. We don't have to add energy to get energy out.
Likewise nuclear power - the energy we extract probably came from the big
bang bazillions of years ago.
Steve, does burning Hydrogen produce Carbon Monoxide?
I'm confused, perhaps the heat from the flame combining
with CO2 in the air breaks the molecular bond. What about
a Fluorine/Hydrocarbon reaction? I was also wondering if
burning Sodium or Magnesium produces CO? Maybe you can
Gee, Mr. Wizard(s).
Since we're into all this mental masturbabion, could you please define the
degrees of death? I mean, we have discussed so many nitpicking points here
about chemical composition, and chemical reaction, but no one has mentioned
so far the degrees of death.
Does being dead from breathing CO differ from the complex gases given off in
combustion of petroleum distillate products such as plastics, styrenes, and
other nasty stuff? I'm sure that some do not give off ANY measurable CO
Tell me, Mr. Wizard(s).
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.