Sunday, May 3. 2009
GRAND OPENING
While I’m studying for final exams and completing my lab work in the genetics department here at Beige, the big news back home is the grand opening of Ms. Eyeshine’s expansion of her auto shop.
She got the money from Herd Thinners, Inc., making her one of the few individuals to come away from a negotiation with R.L. and live to tell about it. In addition to servicing the Herd Thinners fleet of cars and vans (required to transport fresh kills), Aby is also experimenting on alternative fuels. That makes Herd Thinners an investor in green technology. (Kell says R.L. hates the adjective Green; he thinks it sounds herbivorous.)
Gran and Elanor are still handling the business side of the auto shop, and they’ve discovered they make a good team as their managerial skills complement each other. The expansion means extra work for them, including hiring new staff. In this economy they have no shortage of applicants.
Ms. Eyeshine, meanwhile, is cool and composed throughout everything. She’s unflappable, calm and collected no matter what seems to get thrown her way. While felines do have the ability to land on their feet, that level of poise is rare for even them.
This week's question: What types of alternative fuels show promise on the human side of the portal?
She got the money from Herd Thinners, Inc., making her one of the few individuals to come away from a negotiation with R.L. and live to tell about it. In addition to servicing the Herd Thinners fleet of cars and vans (required to transport fresh kills), Aby is also experimenting on alternative fuels. That makes Herd Thinners an investor in green technology. (Kell says R.L. hates the adjective Green; he thinks it sounds herbivorous.)
Gran and Elanor are still handling the business side of the auto shop, and they’ve discovered they make a good team as their managerial skills complement each other. The expansion means extra work for them, including hiring new staff. In this economy they have no shortage of applicants.
Ms. Eyeshine, meanwhile, is cool and composed throughout everything. She’s unflappable, calm and collected no matter what seems to get thrown her way. While felines do have the ability to land on their feet, that level of poise is rare for even them.
This week's question: What types of alternative fuels show promise on the human side of the portal?
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Nuclear energy has huge promise if the enviromentalists would just let us use it. Fact is, its the cleanest way to make the most power but too many people just think "Three Mile Island" when you say "Nuclear"
Clean Coal technology also could do wonders but again enviromentalists prevent it from being used. People hear "coal" and think nothing but pollution when that is no longer the case.
Wind and solar are popular with the green movement but not really that sustainable. Tidal power was a pipedream that is quickly dying.
Clean Coal technology also could do wonders but again enviromentalists prevent it from being used. People hear "coal" and think nothing but pollution when that is no longer the case.
Wind and solar are popular with the green movement but not really that sustainable. Tidal power was a pipedream that is quickly dying.
John Boy,
I've got another word for you: Chernobyl.
Granted that Chernobyl and TMI were different reactor designs and the disasters occurred under slightly different circumstances -- but they happened! And, in Chernobyl's case, a several-hundred-square-mile tract of the Ukraine will remain uninhabitable for at least the next 300-500 years. Also, you have yet to figure out what you're going to do with all that spent fuel that's accumulating in your radioactive waste storage facilities. As I recall, the Yucca Flats facility has been in legal limbo due to environmental concerns for about the last 40 years or thereabouts. And third, my understanding is that the companies that run the reactors tend to have a record of putting profit first while safety comes in at a distant second.
Were I human, I wouldn't necessarily be against nuclear power per se; but I'd darn sure want to know that it's a lot safer than it seems to be right now.
I've got another word for you: Chernobyl.
Granted that Chernobyl and TMI were different reactor designs and the disasters occurred under slightly different circumstances -- but they happened! And, in Chernobyl's case, a several-hundred-square-mile tract of the Ukraine will remain uninhabitable for at least the next 300-500 years. Also, you have yet to figure out what you're going to do with all that spent fuel that's accumulating in your radioactive waste storage facilities. As I recall, the Yucca Flats facility has been in legal limbo due to environmental concerns for about the last 40 years or thereabouts. And third, my understanding is that the companies that run the reactors tend to have a record of putting profit first while safety comes in at a distant second.
Were I human, I wouldn't necessarily be against nuclear power per se; but I'd darn sure want to know that it's a lot safer than it seems to be right now.
Internet RP aside, I'm almost darn sure you ARE human. 
I am willing to get into a small debate on the subject.
You do not have to worry about the byproducts if you use a modern and sane design that breeds fuel for itself with the spend product of past reactions.
The current stockpile of spent fuel, put into any one of the designs built from the test reactors that have been setup would provide fuel for decades. By then there would be another pile from the old reactors. As those are phased out a more efficient breeder design could be used.
I favor the liquid sodium systems, but some people don't like the reactivity of it, but that is a third debate topic.
You do not have to worry about the byproducts if you use a modern and sane design that breeds fuel for itself with the spend product of past reactions.
The current stockpile of spent fuel, put into any one of the designs built from the test reactors that have been setup would provide fuel for decades. By then there would be another pile from the old reactors. As those are phased out a more efficient breeder design could be used.
I favor the liquid sodium systems, but some people don't like the reactivity of it, but that is a third debate topic.
(Tongue planted very firmly in cheek): Lindesfarne, wouldn't the rule about anonymous predation prevent R.L. from killing Aby? I agree that his rapacious management techniques might eviscerate her company, but not her personally...
As for Aby's level of poise, could it be a family trait? Coach Pardus (Aby's brother) seems to share her poise.
As for alternative fuels: natural gas seems to be catching on in big cities, at least for public transportation (buses). Hybrid technology (electric and gasoline engines) is working to some extent, but it (and pure electric engines) are still faced with the problems of battery capacity and the question of recycling the batteries when the car is scrapped. Gasohol (gasoline cut with biologically-produced ethanol) works too, but seems to be available only in the midwest. Biodiesel (running a diesel engine on vegetable oil) works, unsurprisingly. (Early diesel engines were intended and designed to run on vegetable oil.) While burning hydrogen as a fuel is probably the cleanest alternative (since the exhaust is basically water vapor), hydrogen is both explosive and hard to contain. (I assume the Hindenburg exploded and burned on your side as well.)
In short: many show promise. Unfortunately, knowing human beings, it's going to take gasoline prices of five dollars a gallon forever to get us to go consistently green. During last year's high gas prices, SUV sales plummeted. When the prices dropped, SUV sales picked right back up...
As for Aby's level of poise, could it be a family trait? Coach Pardus (Aby's brother) seems to share her poise.
As for alternative fuels: natural gas seems to be catching on in big cities, at least for public transportation (buses). Hybrid technology (electric and gasoline engines) is working to some extent, but it (and pure electric engines) are still faced with the problems of battery capacity and the question of recycling the batteries when the car is scrapped. Gasohol (gasoline cut with biologically-produced ethanol) works too, but seems to be available only in the midwest. Biodiesel (running a diesel engine on vegetable oil) works, unsurprisingly. (Early diesel engines were intended and designed to run on vegetable oil.) While burning hydrogen as a fuel is probably the cleanest alternative (since the exhaust is basically water vapor), hydrogen is both explosive and hard to contain. (I assume the Hindenburg exploded and burned on your side as well.)
In short: many show promise. Unfortunately, knowing human beings, it's going to take gasoline prices of five dollars a gallon forever to get us to go consistently green. During last year's high gas prices, SUV sales plummeted. When the prices dropped, SUV sales picked right back up...
I was going to ask what you were doing up at 2 in the morning but I forgot..you are nocturnal!
DaDrone
DaDrone
Wind is drawing to level investors, solar is nearly within reacch of the average home owner and a California companyis leasing warehouse roof space for commercial solar production. The Brits have a promising wave energy system called Peloris which, it appears, SF is looking at. There is even a technology, which Herd Thinners might look at, in which slaughterhouse waste is being converted to petroleum; proponents say this might also be adapted to handle sewage. All in all, if the progressive firms don't go bankrupt in this economy, we have a very promising situation. Makes you wonder where we might have been if President Reagan had not gutted President Carter's alternative energy research program 29 years ago.
Hmm. Let's see. Ethanol as an additive to gasoline is most widely used. E10 (Ethanol 10%, gasoline 90%) is somewhat standard at most gas pumps around here. Some vehicles are also designed to use E85 (Ethanol 85% gasoline 15%) or better, but that's harder to come by in many places and more expensive.
Brazil many years ago mandated a switch to E85; (nearly) all their vehicles can handle it now. They use mostly sugar cane to make their Ethanol. Its almost non-news for them now.
Our country, on the other hand, tends to make our Ethanol from Corn. Due to subsidies for doing that, most corn producers are doing what they can to make that happen, even at the cost of producing less corn for foodstuffs. And Corn around this country is used in just about everything -- feed for cattle, human food, and (high-fructose) corn syrup is used for sweetening everything. So, because corn for those applications is becoming scarce, the prices for all of them is going up, as is the prices for everything that use them as ingredients (beef, soda, etc.)...
We've been doing very little else with alternatives -- although Hydrogen has some promise in places, or more use of natural gas -- again, the big problem is getting filling stations out everyplace so that people will feel confident they can travel and not run out of whatever it is their vehicle needs to power it.
Brazil many years ago mandated a switch to E85; (nearly) all their vehicles can handle it now. They use mostly sugar cane to make their Ethanol. Its almost non-news for them now.
Our country, on the other hand, tends to make our Ethanol from Corn. Due to subsidies for doing that, most corn producers are doing what they can to make that happen, even at the cost of producing less corn for foodstuffs. And Corn around this country is used in just about everything -- feed for cattle, human food, and (high-fructose) corn syrup is used for sweetening everything. So, because corn for those applications is becoming scarce, the prices for all of them is going up, as is the prices for everything that use them as ingredients (beef, soda, etc.)...
We've been doing very little else with alternatives -- although Hydrogen has some promise in places, or more use of natural gas -- again, the big problem is getting filling stations out everyplace so that people will feel confident they can travel and not run out of whatever it is their vehicle needs to power it.
That depends who you ask. Advocates of each type of alternate fuel say their type is the best. Personally, I favor solar energy with some storage system for when the sun don't shine. Photovoltaics growing at a rapid pace, and we can soon cover the built up parts of our country (roads, roofs, etc.) with solar cells. But that is just my two cents.
Thanks! All of those alternatives are in the mix over here as well, so it seems the laws of physics are the same on both sides of the portal.
As a scientist I look coldly and rationally at each application. All of them have strengths and weaknesses. Personally I hold out hope for nuclear fusion although I'm well aware of the old joke that it's "the power of the future...and always will be."
As a scientist I look coldly and rationally at each application. All of them have strengths and weaknesses. Personally I hold out hope for nuclear fusion although I'm well aware of the old joke that it's "the power of the future...and always will be."
Thomas got it right, in my opinion, when he commented "Advocates of each type of alternate fuel say their type is the best." Each have their advantages and disadvantages. But all remain significantly more than the cost of energy provided by fossil fuels, and baring an unexpected breakthrough in technology, will remain so for some time.
Expense isn't the only problem. Politics sometimes gets in the way. Windmill farms draw complaints from environmentalists for being a hazard to birds (as well as from upscale communities for being an eyesore). Also in the news, a solar energy project was shut down due to the region being the home of an endangered species (memory fails me at what it was, possibly a lizard). News such as this has confused some people I know, who wonder about the priorities of some environmentalists.
Expense isn't the only problem. Politics sometimes gets in the way. Windmill farms draw complaints from environmentalists for being a hazard to birds (as well as from upscale communities for being an eyesore). Also in the news, a solar energy project was shut down due to the region being the home of an endangered species (memory fails me at what it was, possibly a lizard). News such as this has confused some people I know, who wonder about the priorities of some environmentalists.
Glad to hear that things are on doing well for Ms. Eyeshine. It is a pity she is married to her business, as she seems to have several remarkable attributes that would interest a smart tom. It made me chuckle to read the your mother's boss doesn't like the word green because of the apparent herbivore connection. Some folks just tend to not be able to get past popular images, I guess.
First, natural gas is not truly an alternative energy form; it is another fossil fuel. There is a possibility of using methane from garbage and manure in some of the natural gas applications (the carbon from these sources is already in the carbon cycle).
As for nuclear, I live between two power plants, Three Mile Island, which you have heard of, and Peach Bottom. The latter had an incident in which a security guard, complaining about other guards sleeping on duty, could not get the company to listen and ended up sending video to the NRC. When the company fired the guard contractor and set up its own guard force, guess which guard the it refused to hire. The safety of nuclear depends on the integrity and responsibility of the operating corporation. I have no confidence in corporate leadership.
There is also the small matter of nuclear waste. Ask the proponents of nuclear if they are willing to have the waste stored next to their community and most of them will very quickly refuse.
As for "clean coal" the particulates may have been cleaned up, it still adds fossil carbon to the atmosphere. There is also the matter of what will be used in 400 years when it is gone.
Hydrogen has to be derived from water, which uses energy. If the source is coal, there is no carbon reduction benefit. If it is derived from solar, then it could be seen as a way of storing the energy for use at night or in mobile situations.
There is no one alternative energy resource which will serve all purposes; rather, we need to use all of the resources, wind, solar, and wave, in those applications for which each is best suited.
As for nuclear, I live between two power plants, Three Mile Island, which you have heard of, and Peach Bottom. The latter had an incident in which a security guard, complaining about other guards sleeping on duty, could not get the company to listen and ended up sending video to the NRC. When the company fired the guard contractor and set up its own guard force, guess which guard the it refused to hire. The safety of nuclear depends on the integrity and responsibility of the operating corporation. I have no confidence in corporate leadership.
There is also the small matter of nuclear waste. Ask the proponents of nuclear if they are willing to have the waste stored next to their community and most of them will very quickly refuse.
As for "clean coal" the particulates may have been cleaned up, it still adds fossil carbon to the atmosphere. There is also the matter of what will be used in 400 years when it is gone.
Hydrogen has to be derived from water, which uses energy. If the source is coal, there is no carbon reduction benefit. If it is derived from solar, then it could be seen as a way of storing the energy for use at night or in mobile situations.
There is no one alternative energy resource which will serve all purposes; rather, we need to use all of the resources, wind, solar, and wave, in those applications for which each is best suited.
in regards to nuclear waste, it's only a problem because the greens refuse to allow recycling plants to be built for it. expended nuclear fuel is predominantly useful isotopes, and if our recycling facilties were in operation, the still useful fuel could be extracted, and reused in reactors, while the much smaller amounts of non-usable isotopes can be removed. with nuclear power providing the energy, the harmful wastes can be *destroyed*. its just a matter of bombarding it with low levels of radiation to force it to fission into harmless byproducts. vurrent the technology exists for that, and is used on a small scale, but it has never been cost effective enough when our powergrid was being powered by coal and oil. with proper recycling and disposal methods, nuclear power would produce little harmful waste.
and speaking of harmful waste, even 'clean' coal is not an improvement over the current. the amount of nuclear waste produced over the lifespan of a human being from nuclear power would fit inside a coffee cup. for the same power use and span from coal, its over a hundred thousand *tons*. coal is naturally radioactive. an order of magnitude less by mass than uranium perhaps, but you need several orders of magnitude more to run a coal plant. and the waste from a coal plant, even a 'clean' coal plant, is exempt from normal waste handling laws. coal ash is loaded with heavy elements, radioactive isotopes, and harmful chemicals. and most of it gets scattered around the enviroment, either as 'fly ash' from the stacks, or from disposal on the ground.
in regards to chernobyl and TMI, i advise you to look at what actually hapened, and then take a look at modern nuclear powrplant desig. chernobyl failed during a test of a new system intended to provide power in the event of a reactor shutdown. they tested it by setting the reactor up to fail. then the poorly trained russian technicians TOOK A BREAK and left the system running....when a glitch occured, the reactor SCRAMed..and started the meltdown. poor design, and stupid engineers.
TMI was a coolant loss situation which resulted in a partial meltdown. the safety systems functioned exactly as designed, and they didn't even notice the meltdown until years later. and it had continued ot give power for that time, and was functioning seemingly normally.
and it's notable that we've had nuclear power for 60+ years...and those are the only two accidents involving the reactors themselves. and it's also notable that the other incidents (isotpes spills and the occasional fire) all occured over 20 years ago. nothing has happened for over two decades, but people still love to trot out the scare tactics...
and then there is reactor design. look up pebble bed reactor sometime. its the modern style, and the one being adopted because it has extremely high efficency and safety. *it cannot meltdown*. physically impossible. if it loses coolant, it shuts down. by dint of sheer physical design. it produces minimal waste (as it uses more of its isotopic fuel before an element needs replaced. high efficency, and getting higher all the time), and produces minimal radiation.
and the latest versions (http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/nuclear-fusion-and-new-nuclear-fission.html) can be swapped into the buildings of a coal or oil based powerplant, and use the same turbines and powergrids. thus providing economic savings and greatly cleaning up the powergrid, with minimal cost.
and thats assuming we stick to using uranium. *Thorium*, a non-fissile but fertile element, is being adopted by norway for their powergrid exapnsion. (oh yes, i forgot to mention. the US is the only nation that hasn't adopted nuclear power for it's power needs...) thorium can't go critical, cant meltdown, and generates little radiation on its own. but when exposed to a small proton bombardment, it becomes as fissile as uranium and will produce exactly the same power in a reactor. if the reactor fails, the proton bombardment stops, and the reactor turns inert and harmless. most thorium reactors being built are pebblebed reactors using thorium fuel, as well as the normal safety systems. safety systems built into the fuel, safety systems built into the reactor, absurdly redundant safety systems built into the powerplant.
and with the worlds supply of uranium and thorium, we could supply all of humanities power needs for the next *Million years*. and by then, we'd either have found something better, or we've evolved intosomething that doesn't need electrical power. either way......
and speaking of harmful waste, even 'clean' coal is not an improvement over the current. the amount of nuclear waste produced over the lifespan of a human being from nuclear power would fit inside a coffee cup. for the same power use and span from coal, its over a hundred thousand *tons*. coal is naturally radioactive. an order of magnitude less by mass than uranium perhaps, but you need several orders of magnitude more to run a coal plant. and the waste from a coal plant, even a 'clean' coal plant, is exempt from normal waste handling laws. coal ash is loaded with heavy elements, radioactive isotopes, and harmful chemicals. and most of it gets scattered around the enviroment, either as 'fly ash' from the stacks, or from disposal on the ground.
in regards to chernobyl and TMI, i advise you to look at what actually hapened, and then take a look at modern nuclear powrplant desig. chernobyl failed during a test of a new system intended to provide power in the event of a reactor shutdown. they tested it by setting the reactor up to fail. then the poorly trained russian technicians TOOK A BREAK and left the system running....when a glitch occured, the reactor SCRAMed..and started the meltdown. poor design, and stupid engineers.
TMI was a coolant loss situation which resulted in a partial meltdown. the safety systems functioned exactly as designed, and they didn't even notice the meltdown until years later. and it had continued ot give power for that time, and was functioning seemingly normally.
and it's notable that we've had nuclear power for 60+ years...and those are the only two accidents involving the reactors themselves. and it's also notable that the other incidents (isotpes spills and the occasional fire) all occured over 20 years ago. nothing has happened for over two decades, but people still love to trot out the scare tactics...
and then there is reactor design. look up pebble bed reactor sometime. its the modern style, and the one being adopted because it has extremely high efficency and safety. *it cannot meltdown*. physically impossible. if it loses coolant, it shuts down. by dint of sheer physical design. it produces minimal waste (as it uses more of its isotopic fuel before an element needs replaced. high efficency, and getting higher all the time), and produces minimal radiation.
and the latest versions (http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/nuclear-fusion-and-new-nuclear-fission.html) can be swapped into the buildings of a coal or oil based powerplant, and use the same turbines and powergrids. thus providing economic savings and greatly cleaning up the powergrid, with minimal cost.
and thats assuming we stick to using uranium. *Thorium*, a non-fissile but fertile element, is being adopted by norway for their powergrid exapnsion. (oh yes, i forgot to mention. the US is the only nation that hasn't adopted nuclear power for it's power needs...) thorium can't go critical, cant meltdown, and generates little radiation on its own. but when exposed to a small proton bombardment, it becomes as fissile as uranium and will produce exactly the same power in a reactor. if the reactor fails, the proton bombardment stops, and the reactor turns inert and harmless. most thorium reactors being built are pebblebed reactors using thorium fuel, as well as the normal safety systems. safety systems built into the fuel, safety systems built into the reactor, absurdly redundant safety systems built into the powerplant.
and with the worlds supply of uranium and thorium, we could supply all of humanities power needs for the next *Million years*. and by then, we'd either have found something better, or we've evolved intosomething that doesn't need electrical power. either way......
Nobody ACTUALLY knows exactly what caused the meltdown at Chernobyl for the obvious reason that the individuals who could have told us that are dead. One of the versions I've read says that that the operators did conduct a test along the lines you said, but they didn't take a break. That version says that they had to fight to keep the reaction alive, but unbeknowst to them, the reaction was actually going out of control. I've also read references to Chernobyl having a graphite core which was already known to become highly unstable when a reactor was reduced to under 25% power. Chernobyl also didn't have computer backup systems that were present in reactors in the U.S and other Western countries; the U.S.S.R couldn't get the the equipment they needed to put those in because of the Cold War mentality and such.
As Scotty of "Star Trek" fame on this side said, "Ya canna change t' laws o' physics" (side question: Is your side's Scotty a Scottish Terrier?). The main reason we use fossil fuels is that they contain a lot of energy in a small package. Ethanol contains less energy, so we have to burn more to produce the same work. Plus, the problem on this side is that current ethanol production requires food stock: grain and sugar producers. Another downpour on the ethanol parade is that it takes almost as much or more energy to produce it as it provides.
Over here there's research into changing cellulose to ethanol, with some pilot plants going up. If it turns out to be a viable technology, it will mean we can turn agricultural waist, including scraps left over from logging, into fuel. This radically changes the ethanol parameters in that you don't take arable land out of production to make fuel; you just use the left-overs as feed stock. Over here, there's enough agricultural waste in the U.S. alone that we could be a leading exporter of ethanol - if the technology works.
A lot of things hang on that little word "if."
Biodiesel look promising, but I notice that it hasn't seemed to have made much inroad into the fuel market. Aside from the problem of taking land out of food production, there's also the problem of the fuel gelling at lower temperatures. Not a good thing.
There's other alternative fuels, but they have problems. There's one who's name I can't recall that can already be produced from scraps and can be used in existing gasoline engines without tweaking - so the supporters say. Unfortunately I can't recall the name at the moment. Then there's methanol, which is easy to produce from cellulose but is toxic. Natural gas, methane, and propane must be transported under pressure, and over here there was horrific accident in Canada during the 1970s just from the rupture of a tank under pressure on a bus. Hydrogen is a difficult gas to work with and also has the pressurized tank problem.
If you have Popular Mechanics on your side, look for a chart they had on alternative fuels. It was very concise and examined the problems of each.
As you've probably notices, there's a huge controversy over here concerning nuclear power and coal. The problem with coal is the CO2 and the problem with nuclear is waste. I'm of the opinion that the waste issue is overblown: it's possible to change some of the waste to glass and drop it into a subduction trench and let it be processed naturally in the mantel. I will comment that a huge problem at Chernobyl was the graphite blocks that caught on fire and that Western power plants don't use this model for obvious reasons. And I'll leave it at that.
If we had an efficient way of storing electricity we could better utilize wind and solar. Unfortunately we don't, though there's some small-scale molten sodium-sulfur batteries. The best solution isn't very efficient - using a two-reservoir and pumping water into the top off-peak and letting it flow through generator turbines to the one below during peak demand.
Over here there's research into changing cellulose to ethanol, with some pilot plants going up. If it turns out to be a viable technology, it will mean we can turn agricultural waist, including scraps left over from logging, into fuel. This radically changes the ethanol parameters in that you don't take arable land out of production to make fuel; you just use the left-overs as feed stock. Over here, there's enough agricultural waste in the U.S. alone that we could be a leading exporter of ethanol - if the technology works.
A lot of things hang on that little word "if."
Biodiesel look promising, but I notice that it hasn't seemed to have made much inroad into the fuel market. Aside from the problem of taking land out of food production, there's also the problem of the fuel gelling at lower temperatures. Not a good thing.
There's other alternative fuels, but they have problems. There's one who's name I can't recall that can already be produced from scraps and can be used in existing gasoline engines without tweaking - so the supporters say. Unfortunately I can't recall the name at the moment. Then there's methanol, which is easy to produce from cellulose but is toxic. Natural gas, methane, and propane must be transported under pressure, and over here there was horrific accident in Canada during the 1970s just from the rupture of a tank under pressure on a bus. Hydrogen is a difficult gas to work with and also has the pressurized tank problem.
If you have Popular Mechanics on your side, look for a chart they had on alternative fuels. It was very concise and examined the problems of each.
As you've probably notices, there's a huge controversy over here concerning nuclear power and coal. The problem with coal is the CO2 and the problem with nuclear is waste. I'm of the opinion that the waste issue is overblown: it's possible to change some of the waste to glass and drop it into a subduction trench and let it be processed naturally in the mantel. I will comment that a huge problem at Chernobyl was the graphite blocks that caught on fire and that Western power plants don't use this model for obvious reasons. And I'll leave it at that.
If we had an efficient way of storing electricity we could better utilize wind and solar. Unfortunately we don't, though there's some small-scale molten sodium-sulfur batteries. The best solution isn't very efficient - using a two-reservoir and pumping water into the top off-peak and letting it flow through generator turbines to the one below during peak demand.
The company that developed the waste to oil process calls it the Thermal Conversion Process (TCP)
Web site:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp
They have one pilot plant in operation and say they produced 600 barrels of oil in April.
Web site:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp
They have one pilot plant in operation and say they produced 600 barrels of oil in April.
Depolymerization technology has shown a lot of potential. It isn't an alternative fuel, but it does allow any organic compound to be converted into petroleum. This would allow most of our trash to be used as fuel - and one thing humans can do is produce trash. It would make our oil supply practically infinite and reduce price by about 80%. It wouldn't do anything about air pollution but would clean up the landfills.
I just got some compact flourescent bulbs, but mom doesn't like them that much. She says they're too dull, 'cuz she doesn't have as good night vision as me and my sister.
In my opinion, one that shows the most promise is the Fule Cell, it runs on hydrogen and its only byproducts are water and heat. It'll be another 30 years or so untill it becomes a common fuel sorce for cars and longer untill it powers more, but it is looking to be the answer to gassoline and other fossile fuels.
Calendar
|
September '10 |
|
||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Quicksearch
Archives
Categories
Syndicate This Blog
Blog Administration
Powered by
